But what is the future of pay tv with this decision . I spoke with jon erlichman, who has been following the story from the very start. And joining us is bloomberg contributing editor Paul Kedrosky and bill gurley. I started by asking bill his take on the ruling. I think from the very beginning it was going to end up in the court system. It was designed for that. It really was. The bottome line, whethere youre looking at big media out of hollyword or any type of telecommunication threat, whatsoever, you have two large institutional masses that know how to litigate and lobby and win those types of battles. If you go headstrong into either one of those trying to disrupt, youre going to end up in the courts, absolutely. You have this big investment in uber. Surely you guys have thought about it from the very beginning this is going to run into commission kind of issues. There is something very different about municipal regulations and federal regulations. In municipal regulation, it is very easy for a mayor, a city council to stand up and say you know what . Those laws may be outdated. Maybe we should revisit them and rewrite them. That has happened in d. C. , chicago, new york, california and now colorado. That is much harder on a federal level. We tend to have these laws that have existed for 200 years and the Supreme Court tries to retrofit them to whats going on today and then they make a ruling and that becomes another piece of the puzzle how these things are viewed. It is a really big question whether there is aver moment where our federal government can stand up and say hey, it has been 200 years. Maybe we ought to start from scratch on something. The Court Majority opinion tossed it back to congress and said congress should deal with this and could. Paul, let me ask you, aereo said it is not just about them but Cloud Computing itself. Both the majority and the dissenting opinion took issue with that and said that the implications were ominous. The majority opinion saying it shouldnt count with the cloud saying it could be different. This is going to be used against the cloud anyway. What does this mean for broader technology, paul . I think it is really important for broader technology. I hate to say this. It burns it burns i kind of agree with Justice Scalia on this one. The majority said this is a limited decision very specific to whats happening here and really shouldnt be seen as having any direct implications for broader innovation with respect to cloud services. Justice scalia quite rightly pointed out this is the majority arguing if looks like cable tv, we have rules like that, it must be cable tv. The result is it doesnt recognize that the Core Technology has completely changed. In a sense, it is very antiinnovation. If something looks enough like the thing that came before, moves someone from point a to point b, it transmits content, it must be regulated. We look to provide the same thing at lower cost or much faster or something else. It is not like we tried to do a completely different thing. Innovation is about doing the same old things in varying new ways. The part of decision that really worried me. Bill, the notion that this could go not just aereo to the cloud and beyond that, is that a concern . It is not something im particularly worried about. A lot of cloud applications would be ones that were media and were vastly moving to a world where no one owns media anyway. They stream it. Right, so the issue of why capping an itunes song on multiple servers wont be an issue . It doesnt seem to be with the cases that are going on today. I do think the aereo team brought that argument to the table to try to increase the weight of the decision rather than that being an issue that people are particularly what are the issues for Enterprise Software and things like that where there are copyright issues. On one hand you have technologists who want to put their stuff in the cloud and make it available, but they might want to charge extra in this court decision. It might get closer to that. Lets just hope that every single startup doesnt find themselves needing lobbyists. That would be a horrible outcome. Paul, is this i was asked on an earlier show if this was Northern California fighting southern california. The entire possibility of san diego existing. Silicon valley vs. L. A. What do you see as the stakeholders here . I think it is very much that kind of case. The pirate upstarts trying to take a monolith bill talked about the difference between municipal and federal law. I think it is very much the same thing. Monolithic providers of Service Providers say we need three or four Provider Companies and the rest of us should expect all of this content to add us through licenses providers. As opposed to breaking down and disaggregating the providers of media, the the cashers and streamers and all of these different bits and pieces. I think these are two very different views how the world should look over the next year, five years and 10 years. Northern california represents that upstart view. Southern california represents the monolithic sort of federal view of copyright holders and license holders, you know, a small group of people providing all the content to everyone else. I think that model is breaking down in the same way that the uber model is breaking down. It is just unfortunate that you have to work through the monolithic federal system as opposed to dealing with the problem one municipality at a time. Bill, do you think if a startup were to come to you as a Venture Capitalist and said i have this great idea on a new way to present television shows, cable tv, new, you know, netflixlike or something, i dont know. Does that make a less interesting investment to you . I wouldnt call it the ruling today. I would call it the powers that are in effect in that market which paul just referred to. Take any of our most regulated industries, finance, healthcare, telecom, media. Were getting to the point where there are four large providers, three large providers. Look at doddfrank which was supposed to help the consumer. Checking competition. It has gotten way worse since doddfrank. The number of banks is on the rise. Free checking has gone away. Innovation and regulation are definitely at odds with one another. I happen to think this is a bigger topic. That democracy and capitalism kind of corrupt one another if they get to spend enough time together. You know . Capitalism corrupts democracy and democracy corrupts capitalism. So these heavily regulated industries are minefields for startups because Market Forces are not at play. Jon, you have been covering this aereo story quite a bit. What do you make of todays ruling . Obviously the broadcasters are pleased with this decision. I dont think what is going away, you guys talked about this already. The reality that people want to consume video and content and tv and movies in a whole bunch of new ways. I do think, though, at the end of the day, the broadcasters feel like beyond all the subject surrounding the cloud and Cloud Technology and what this says about the limits perhaps for Cloud TechnologyGoing Forward that this was always a story about stealing a signal, that others are paying for, and getting paid yourself for it. You know, i still think there is this as this continues to potentially play out in a lower court, well see obviously what happens, the question of whether or not there could be some kind of compromise between aereo and the broadcasters, certainly that would involve money and the company was always very clear that there was no plan b. That they didnt set up a business whereby they would ultimately be paying these fees that broadcasters get. But it is something to watch, for sure. Bill, let me ask you, it would seem to me there is actually great opportunity in these places where there is a lot of regulation. That the businesses are in some ways more rife for innovation. They have been protected from it for so long. Some of them get really good at protecting themselves. Imagine, you know, if you looked at your senior teams top talent and say where are our best people . What are our competitive advantages . Take a company like comcast, for example. You look at their policy group, these are some of the leading executers in the company, and i would argue that many of them, their ability to lobby and control regulation is their core. They dont call the Marketing Department or the Product Department and say we need to hustle. What features should we lease . They call their policy and legal departments. I feel like we were at the same conference and the c. E. O. Of verizon was there and he was asked a question about bluetooth and he didnt know what it was. It seemed amazing that someone running a telecommunications didnt know what that was. It occurred to me he probablly knew everyting about the contract that governed the guys who hang the lines and take the power lines. Absolutely. Silicon valley isnt, you know completely faultless in that everyone here likes to believe that if you can something with technology then you should be able to. A libertarian. Well, if i can build a technology that will steal all the content that people legitimately paid money to create, that should be ok. That is probably not right either. That was jon erlichman, Paul Kedrosky and bill gurley. Google makes a major push to put android everywhere. Were going to tell you about googles effort to rule everything from your car to your tv to your wrist. Welcome back to the best of welcome back to the best of bloomberg west. Im cory johnson. Google just held its annual Developers Conference here in San Francisco. They unveiled a new version of its android software, android l. Google also showed off plans for android tv, a line of android smart watches and android for the car. Jon erlichman caught up with Patrick Brady and asked him about android auto. Android auto is a familiar android experience but it has been redesigned for the car. What it allows you to do is control the apps and Services Running on your android smart phone through the familiar car controls. Steering wheel buttons. Console dials, touch screens. It allows you to see all of your display information so you can see live turn by turn directions through google maps controlled through the cars controls. If we were to boil this down to three things that people need to know about it, what would with one of them . The first one is that it is voiceenabled. Which we really think is a safer way to use your smart phone in the car. You dont need to take your hands off the wheel or your eyes off the road to be able to control android auto. You want to play a song on pandora, you can say play whatever the song is on pandora and android will cue that up for you. If you want to send a text message, you can do that all through voice. A second feature, you talked a lot about it knows where you are. Yeah. It is completely context aware. Obviously when you connect your android smart phone to the car, it knows youre in the car and probably driving. We will show you things that are applicable for the drive like accidents that happened up ahead. Traffic information. Your next turn that is upcoming if youre using navigation. It is context aware and shows you these things. It also knows right when you get in the car what your most likely destinations are going to be or most likely contacts are going to be based on the patterns of you using this device, not only when youre in the car, because youre connected it learns from any searches you may have done, a trip that youre taking on the weekend, it will have the station cued up for you so you just tap it and go. The world of apps is a big one. Obviously on your smart phone you have a big inventory. How does that factor in . I think the big thing that were trying to do is capture the power of the android ecosystem. And make it as easy as possible for developers to bring their apps into the car. Not all the apps make sense. It doesnt make sense to be playing flappy birds while youre driving. Perhaps whether it is audio streaming apps, pod cast or news or live sports or radio, whatever it might be, we really want to allow users to use all of those apps when they are driving. Similarly messaging apps. Not everyone uses the same messaging services. We want to enable all of those apps to use the completely Voice Enabled experience in android auto. That is what were opening up today. That was Patrick Brady, googles engineering director with jon erlichman. Just weeks after saying women made up 30 of its workforce, google is pushing for women to code. Up next we will talke with megan smith, the Vice President of googles secretive lab, google x. Welcome back to the best of bloomberg west. Im cory johnson. Google has been working hard increasing gender diversity in technology. They recently committed 50 million to the made with Code Initiative trying to encourage girls to get into coding. Jon erlichman caught up with megan smith, Vice President of google x. Jon started by asking megan about the companys push to get girls to code. One thing is concerning is that only 1 of High School Girls are expressing interest in coding, and yet all the products they love are made with code so we launched a program called the things you love are made with code focusing on bringing High School Girls into this industry. These are fun, collaborative, exciting jobs and girls think they are for the boys and they opt out. We have announced 50 million of marketing and partnerships and other things across the next three years to really help bring the girls in. There is 1. 4 million new jobs coming in our industry and we only have 400,000 people to fill them. We need all the young people to know what great, fun careers these are. High impact careers, things that matter that they could be part of. When you look at an event like this and still see a lot of men, but the numbers of women who are here have been climbing. Have you noticed a difference over the years . Were actively doing outreach making sure women feel invited to i. O. Last year we were only 8 women attendees. There is a lot of women in our industry. We just need to get them here. This year, we were over 20 . Beyond getting them into the industry, what about the executive level . Google put out diversity stats recently. I think the numbers roughly 1 5 of the Management Team being female . Yes. In general in technology, we actually have slid backwards from the 1980s with technical women going from 40 in the 1980s down to 15 and at the executive ranks. We just really have to do a push to get more women in and there is many bright spots at the college level. A lot of Computer Science is moving back to 30 . By changing curriculum and making it more impactful. The young women were not seeing coding was impactful. They want to have impact in the world so they were choosing other careers. When media focus on female c. E. O. Stories like a lot of people talking about marissa myer oversleeping or missing a meeting. What kind of message does that send . Im sure there are many different c. E. O. S who might have overslept and missed a meeting. Marissa is terrific. The main thing is were working on advancements of women. There is a lot of unconscious bias in the world. When we see it, we need to debug it and work on it. An example would be data training with everybody. For example, if you have 10 characteristics for a job, on average, men will apply if they have three and women will apply if they have seven. There is a group with their hands up and a group with their hands not up. Anyone of them might be someone to promote to the job. Becoming conscious of that, once you see your bias, work on programs and things that can help you. Part of that includes releasing our data. So we can see ourselves and know we want to fix this problem. In the world of google x, there is a google x presence here. Tell us about it. Some of our projects are public. We also launched a product called solve for x. X is what youre passionate about solving in the world. In addition to our projects, were looking around the world for incredible tech pioneers who have great ideas. We have invited seven of them here. They are presenting quick like tedstyle fast proposal talks and then were reporting. One of my favorite ones is about to land from ethiopia. He has android tablets in a village in ethiopia where no one can read within miles and the kids are teaching themselves how to read. His moon shot is can they learn how to read themselves . Can they teach each other . Can we add teachers . We get to the kids through technology. Do these moon shots eventually make their way into google . No, you just want to see everybody focused . It is to use technology to make the world a radically better place. We have these moon shot ideas. What really can help with traffic and medicine monitoring, the contact lenses. All of these ideas. We are on a mission and there has always been tech pioneers, all of these people who solve things in the world. So we stand on their shoulders. Solve for x is our passion project. Find our colleagues out in the world doing this and try to amplify people doing this kind of work. Often when youre doing this kind of work, you dont have a lots of support. Some people think youre crazy. Sort of like elon musk four or five years ago, people were like the rockets are blowing up. Hes spending all of this money. Now look at him. We have a lot of problems in world. We love to use technology to solve them. Just a final question on google glass. The team that is here, it has a presence here. It wasnt part of the keynote. How come . I dont know if im the best person to answer that. I think were really we were so excited about glass and my favorites of the glass explorers and the things they are doing, especially some of the enterprise things, you see irvine giving glass to each of the incoming medical students. The things that were going to see. Crisis response, etc. Maybe we feel like that is ramping and the team was working on some of the new