Oracle, OpenAI End Plans to Expand Flagship Data Center

18:51Caroline Hyde:Anna Ruffman of Grenadilla Advisory. Thank you very much. Coming up next, we have more details on Anthropics suing the Defense Department. But Cara, you're also looking at other names.

19:00Ed Ludlow:And other legal news. Shares of Live Nation actually pushing high of 5.6%. This is its ticket master subsidiary, along with Live Nation, have reached a settlement by the federal antitrust authorities. The DOJ have been saying this Monday, It kind of throws a bit of a wrench into this mid-trial of an antitrust case that accused the company, remember, of illegally monopolizing the live music industry. This is Blue Bag Tech. Effective marketing is smarter, not louder. Cutting-edge technology alone won't deliver better experiences or outcomes. Adobe helps marketers use data and AI to drive smarter engagement, reduce noise, and use AI effectively and responsibly.

19:44Ed Ludlow:The brands winning in the AI era aren't the ones chasing every trend. They're the ones with the right systems and strategy. It's time to lead with insight, agility, and innovation. It starts with Adobe.

19:58Caroline Hyde:So there's a lot of noise about AI, but time's too tight for more promises. So let's talk about results. At IBM, we work with our employees to integrate technology right into the systems they need. Now, a global workforce of 300 ,000 can use AI to fill their HR questions, resolving 94 % of common questions. Not noise. Proof of how we can help companies get smarter by putting AI where it actually pays off, deep in the work that moves the business. Let's create smarter business. IBM.

20:28Ed Ludlow:Adobe Acrobat Studio, your new foundation. Use PDF spaces to generate a presentation. Grab your docs, your permits, your moves. AI levels up your pitch, gets it in a groove. Choose a template with your timeless cool. Come on now, let's flex those tools. Drive, design, deliver, make it sing. AI builds the deck so you can build that thing. Do that, do that, do that with Acrobat. Learn more at adobe.com slash do that with Acrobat.

21:05Caroline Hyde:back to the breaking news just moments ago anthropic is suing the defense department after it was labeled a supply chain risk a designation usually reserved for foreign adversities let's get to our ai editor bloomberg's seth figerman for more and actually what it is that anthropic's challenging it would appear from the suit is the department's decision to shift uh the the contracts to others, essentially. Yeah. And what we're hearing from Anthropic here in a statement is they're taking this step to protect their customers and their business. At the same time, though, they're telling us that they intend to pursue all avenues here to try to media this relationship with the government, including direct conversation with the government.

21:49Caroline Hyde:So they're not foreclosing the continuation of talks here, but they are still pursuing litigation.

21:54Ed Ludlow:These actions are unprecedented and unlawful, the company said in the complaint that was filed over in San Francisco Federal Court. And they say the Constitution does not allow for the government to wield its enormous power to punish a company for its protected speech. What's been so extraordinary is the way in which anthropologists continue to speak out against the government. Dario Amadei basically told us already he was going to go and do this.

22:15Caroline Hyde:That's right, yeah. They're clearly being outspoken and taking a stand on this issue here. They're not just taking this sitting down, but it's clearly behind the scenes the tone might be a little bit different privately, but they're looking for a resolution. They're also not looking to just take this, you know, sitting down. A part of what's happened in parallel, Seth, in recent days is that, you know, OpenAI has negotiated with the Department of Defense, you know, basically to come in. Do we know, like, what the status quo is now, what the latest is in where the department stands on its AI tool policy and who it's using?

22:47Caroline Hyde:Yeah, I mean, the last that we've heard is that OpenAI has been seeking additional protections and safeguards for some of the same concerns that Anthropic had previously raised publicly and privately. We don't know yet if the Pentagon has agreed to all those provisions, but it does seem that the tenor of the debate between OpenAI and the Defense Department has been much more civil in some respects than what we've seen with Anthropic.

23:08Ed Ludlow:But what about the reporting of how this is affecting those that work for the businesses? A lot of these companies say they're nothing without their talent. We already know a key senior OpenAI leader in the robotics department has left.

23:19Caroline Hyde:Yeah, I think we're still waiting to see if there's a meaningful attrition from either or both companies as a result of the uncertainty and tension here. At the moment, yes, there was one high-profile example over the weekend, but we haven't yet seen others. And of course, we're still waiting to see on the customer side of things, are people rallying to the defense of Anthropic for taking the stand, or are they at risk of losing more business, even if they're not legally required to cut business with Anthropic? Might some still do it? So, if we're going back to a question that we've asked you and your team of reporters quite a lot recently, but do we have any sense of like how important from a financial standpoint a deal with the Defense Department actually is to Anthropic or OpenAI?

23:55Caroline Hyde:Like is it a major part of their business worth fighting for? Sorry. No, of course. From a pure dollars perspective, it seems pretty marginal, at least at the current moment. The Anthropic Pentagon deal was worth up to 200 million, but our understanding from procurement records was that it was really just a couple million to date. That said, you have to think about how much it might have been over the long term. And again, the larger blast radius of customers who either legally might feel that they can't do business with Anthropic now, or just optically or for fear of pressure from the administration might rethink how much they commit.

24:24Caroline Hyde:So that is much harder to quantify.

24:26Ed Ludlow:We've obviously, putting all of this in the context of an actual war that seems to have erupted over the course of the internal dialogue that we're having between Anthropic or AI providers in the military in the United States. Is this something that is happening abroad as well? Is it something that is causing tension about use of AI in Europe and elsewhere?

24:46Caroline Hyde:Yeah, I don't know if we've seen it play out quite the same way as it has here. But I think that question of who has a say over this powerful technology, how much can the government dictate the way that it's used, and how much can they force private companies to sort of cow to that, I think that is very much a global debate. It's just taking place here in a more prominent way. And these are the companies at the forefront of that technology.

25:07Ed Ludlow:And American companies are that. Seth Finkerman, across the breaking news, of course, has anticipated. Anthropic is indeed suing the U.S. government. Coming up, we go back to Iran after it destroyed a key million radar system used to guide U.S. missile defences in the Gulf. That is next, and this is Bloomberg Tech.

25:36Caroline Hyde:Welcome back to Bloomberg Tech. Over the last hour, equity markets, technology shares in particular, actually erased a lot of the declines that we saw earlier in the session. That's that 100 is now effectively flat. The story with regards to what's happening to the ongoing war in Iran is once again oil. You're looking at New York crude at$95,$96 a barrel, but at one point above$100 a barrel. Brent, similar picture up to$120, down to$100. Partly disruption and partly the market trying to interpret how long this will go on for. You know, the administration, as Tyler Kendall outlined earlier, thinking and communicating it will be short, but actually a lot of evidence to the contrary, Cara.

26:17Ed Ludlow:Yeah, disruption and destruction, Ed, because Iran has destroyed a key$300 million radar system used to guide US missile defences in the Gulf. And that's according to a US official. It's a blow that could widen gaps in the region's ability to counter future attacks. For more, Blue Moon Defense Editor Jerry Doyle joins us. Just give us the context, because we're not suddenly completely down by defense systems here, Jerry, but it is a key target that was managed to be struck.

26:44Caroline Hyde:That's right. The one that we know that was destroyed was located in Jordan. It's part of the THAAD radar battery. Now, the THAAD is called Terminal High Altitude Air Defense. It's meant to shoot down advanced ballistic missiles traveling extremely fast above the Earth's atmosphere. and the radar guides these missiles and has an extremely high resolution, can spot targets, extremely long ranges. It's very useful, very high power, very expensive. Now, with that radar gone, the THAAD battery is still operational. It just has to take queuing from other less advanced radars, such as those that work with the nearby Patriot missile systems.

27:23Caroline Hyde:Jerry, on Bloomberg Tech, we've been looking at technology on the battlefield, essentially. One of the data sets that Bloomberg's been tracking is Iran's use of drones, particularly against what are neighboring countries in the Gulf. What does the latest data tell us about Iran's munition stockpile, where they are in their use of drones versus ballistic missiles, etc.? Well, to some degree, it's impossible to say how many drones Iran has left, Whether the tempo of operations has slowed down because they simply don't have as many munitions, whether their command and communications have been disrupted from strikes, whether production has been disrupted, whether they're husbanding their resources for a larger attack, it's really difficult to say.

28:09Caroline Hyde:We can, however, say that the number of strikes has decreased quite a bit from the opening days of the war, and that Iran has started to rely more heavily on the use of these Shahed-136 drones, which are essentially low-cost rudimentary cruise missiles, as opposed to using more expensive long-range ballistic missiles, which Iran started the war with somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 ,000 to 2 ,500 of, but clearly has many fewer now. Jerry, the market's also trying to interpret long-term how this changes the defense technology industry. There's a note from Trius, for example, that puts a spotlight on the use of autonomous maritime technology in the context of the war of Iran.

28:52Caroline Hyde:For you and the team at Bloomberg across the defense desk, what are we seeing? What are some of the stories coming out of this conflict? Well, so far we haven't seen, as far as I know, the use of autonomous maritime strike platforms in the Persian Gulf. We have seen those obviously used quite a bit in the Ukraine war. So we know they can be effective and we know they can be built relatively cheaply and operated in sort of an ad hoc way, again, to great effect. It's not clear how many of these Iran has or how it might be able to deploy them or whether the U.S. has destroyed them over the course of strikes in the last week.

29:29Caroline Hyde:But platforms like those would be extremely useful in a scenario which Iran finds itself in right now, where it's trying to shut down a waterway, a narrow waterway like the Strait of Hormuz. Obviously, we've seen a lot of autonomous aerial platforms, such as the Shahed-136 drones, which have been used in strikes all across the Gulf. Those are not controlled by the ground, but are guided by GPS technology. They're fairly easy to make, fairly cheap to produce in large numbers. And we've actually seen in this war the U.S. use its own version of the Shahed-136. It's called Lucas. Lucas, I believe.

30:08Caroline Hyde:Yeah, a long-range unmanned combat aerial system, I think, is what that's a strange acronym for. But we've seen that used. And the U.S., of course, has planned to manufacture these at scale and use them in a way that Iran sort of is, to use them to overwhelm or confuse or deplete enemy air defenses or enemy defenses in general in advance of a more advanced or higher-end type strike. Bloomberg Defense Editor Jerry Doyle, thank you very much. Caro, plenty more news headlines today.

30:36Ed Ludlow:There are, Ed, and it's time now for Talking Tech. And first up, the head of OpenAI's robotics team, Caitlin Kalinowski, resigned Saturday, citing the company's deal to deploy its AI models within the Pentagon's classified network. Now, Kalinowski said in a post on X and on LinkedIn that those issues needed, quote, more deliberation before signing the deal. Plus, Cerebrus has picked Morgan Stanley to lead its IPO. That's according to sources, who say Cerebrus has filed fresh paperwork for the IPO and is set to meet with analysts and prospective investors this month. The offering could raise about$2 billion in a listing as soon as April.

31:10Ed Ludlow:And Tencent, it does intend to invest several hundred million dollars in Paramount's acquisition of Warner Brothers Discovery. It's according to sources who say the Chinese company would be acting as a passive financial investor, though it might still decide not to invest. Tencent and Paramount declined to comment, Ed.

31:27Caroline Hyde:OK, coming up, we're going to discuss how AI is shaking up the legal profession with Harvey's CEO, Winston Weinberg. That's next. This is Bloomberg Tech. So there's a lot of noise about AI, but time's too tight for more promises. So let's talk about results. At IBM, we work with our employees to integrate technology right into the systems they need. Now, a global workforce of 300 ,000 can use AI to fill their HR questions, resolving 94 % of common questions. Not noise. Proof of how we can help companies get smarter by putting AI where it actually pays off Deep in the work that moves the business Let's create smarter business IBM

32:39Ed Ludlow:Support for the show comes from Public. Public is an investing platform that offers access to stocks, options, bonds, and crypto. And they've also integrated AI with tools that can assist investors in building customized portfolios. One of these tools is called Generated Assets. It allows you to turn your ideas into investable indexes. So let's say you're interested in something specific like biotech companies with high R &D spend, small cap stocks with improving operating margins, or the S &P 500 minus high debt companies. Chances are there isn't an ETF that fits your exact criteria. But on public, you just type in a prompt and their AI screens thousands of stocks and build a one of a kind index.

33:20Ed Ludlow:You can even backtest it against the S &P 500. Then you can invest in a few clicks. Go to public.com slash market and earn an uncapped 1 % bonus when you transfer your portfolio. That's public.com slash market.

33:33Caroline Hyde:Add paid for by Public Holdings. Brokered services by Public Investing, member FINRA SIPC. Advisory services by Public Advisors, SEC registered advisor.

33:41Ed Ludlow:Crypto services by ZeroHash. Sample prompts are for illustrative purposes only, not investment advice. All investing involves risk of loss. See complete disclosures at public.com slash disclosures. Harvey, you know it as the AI platform for the legal profession. It's today unveiling a new tool to let law firms build custom AI agents even faster. That should give more control over multi-step processes they ask AI to complete. Let's discuss with Harvey's co-founder and CEO, Winston Weinberg. And Winston, what's so interesting is about the human in the loop, the oversight, the control. How do they maintain that when you're leaving AI agents to go and do work for multi-step processes?

34:19Caroline Hyde:Yeah, thank you so much for having me. I'm excited to be here also for Legal Week, which has basically all of the legal tech industry in New York for one gathering. The way that we think about it is in law, it's incredibly complex and it's multiplayer. And so if you're building this agentic system that is kind of the infrastructure for completing legal work, you need it to be able to actually interact with all of the different specialized agents to do that task, the multiple law firms working on a project, and the Fortune 500 that is thinking about buying another company or involved in a litigation or something like that.

34:51Caroline Hyde:And so it's a really complex process of integrating with all the correct data, having the humans in the loop when they need to be, and handing off between the different experts that are specialists in that particular domain.

35:02Ed Ludlow:Let's talk about your specialization and the fact that you have all these integrations and have such a wide scope of legal companies you're already working with. Because the age-old criticism is you're just a rapper of GPT or whether it's anthropic, you're agnostic to the models underlying. How are you making yourself so necessary for the legal profession?

35:21Caroline Hyde:Yeah, the best way to think about this is in these incredibly highly regulated industries, the work that they have to do is very complex. And all of the data is in all these different silos, right? And again, it's multi-party and collaborative. And so what you need to solve is which model is the best for this particular part of a task? How do you route that to the human? And then what's going to become really important is how do you actually review all those outputs? and evaluate them for accuracy. If you think about what's going to happen in the next 10 years, think about how complex an international merger is going to be, right?

35:52Caroline Hyde:Now that we're using AI to produce more products, to produce more MSAs, more contracts, et cetera, reviewing those, honestly, in 10 years, I think you can't do it. A human cannot do this without AI systems that can integrate with everything else. Winston, I want to hold you to this to be succinct. This is a tool that makes a practicing lawyer more productive and better at their job. or it is a tool that in the future displaces the role or function of certain team members within a legal practice? Yeah, the best way to think about this is this is task automation, and I think it will always be task automation, right?

36:29Caroline Hyde:So if you think about a very complex fund formation that involves 50 LPs or something like that, there are certain tasks like doing comment memos or something like that that are going to get automated away. But a lot of the high value is that strategic advice on top of those tasks, right? And so as these tasks get automated, the job of a lawyer is just going to level up over time. I ask you that because one of the show's biggest fans, my father, is almost certainly watching, who has more than three decades of practice in English and European law. And I remember as a kid, the whole billable hours thing, right?

37:07Caroline Hyde:You know, lawyers across the world used to scan barcodes for 15 minutes of work. Really interested, therefore, for how you price this. You know, I think you guys run a subscription-based model, right, which can also be priced depending on the volume of use of any customer. But that's the debate. Where's the value? Yeah, exactly. So right now, that is how we do all of our pricing. Over time, what we're starting to do a lot more of is how do you do custom build for a lot of different customers? and the reality is doing these custom builds, these forward deploys solutions is with how good the coding models are getting, a lot, lot stronger gross margins, right?

37:45Caroline Hyde:And so a lot of what we're starting to do is we'll work with like a large bank or private equity or telco and a law firm that's partnered with them and we'll actually redesign or transform how they deliver those services entirely, right? And that we are going to price much differently and probably closer to how do the outcomes work and how does consumption on top of that work.

38:04Ed Ludlow:You've got some heavyweight investors, Sequoia, KP, A16Z, GV, the list goes on. They want to hear about how you're able to monetize this. When someone is sat within the innovation part of the legal business, and they're like, do I do a Claude plug-in? Do I do Harvey? Do I keep with LexisNexis? What's your answer?

38:23Caroline Hyde:Yeah, the best way to think about this is everything else out there is a point solution. And what we're building is a platform, right? And with that platform, you have all of the integrations. You have security. you respect ethical walls, permissions, we grab the correct data so we ground it in truthful data instead of bad data that is going to give you a bad answer. And as this scales over time, you really just have to outrun these model providers that are trying to build the general system. And the bet that I have, and I'm very confident in my team's ability to deliver on this, is we can race faster in the legal vertical than they can generally.

39:00Caroline Hyde:Winston Weinberg, CEO of Harvey. Really good to have you here on Bloomberg Tech. Thank you very much. Now, coming up on the program, we're going to discuss the top generative AI apps for consumers. And Dreesen Horowitz's partner, Olivia Moore, joins us for that conversation. That's next. This is Bloomberg Tech.

39:24Caroline Hyde:Nscale has raised$2 billion in new funding. The deal values the UK-based AI data center developer at$14.6 billion and places it amongst Europe's most valuable startups. N-Scale has also named a trio of high-profile tech leaders to its board of directors, including Sheryl Sandberg, Nick Clegg and Suzanne Decker. Cara.

39:45Ed Ludlow:Fascinating. Now, let's just think about how for a few years, AI native firms had the edge with consumers for generative AI apps. As the market matures, it's kind of fading. It's one of the findings from a report released today by Andreessen Horowitz on the top generative AI apps. A16Z partner, Olivia Moore, has been doing this for three years. And what's so interesting is number one is still ChatGPT. We have Gemini. But where are we starting to see, just if we're thinking about the consumer and consumer-focused apps, Claude coming in, and how are we seeing people using different chatbots? Yeah, absolutely.

40:19Ed Ludlow:There were a lot of, this was actually the most fun and exciting report to do out of the six we've done because there were a lot of changes. First, as you mentioned, we did add for the first time companies that are not AI native, but are significantly AI enhanced. So Notion, as an example, they reported that 50 % of their ARR is now coming from AI features. Canva is another one, FreePick, Grammarly. Then beyond that, I think the other really interesting trend in this edition of the list is just the continued battle between ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini for the mainstream consumer. and we've seen some pretty significant changes there over the last couple of months.

40:57Ed Ludlow:What sparks the change other than press and coverage of what's happening with the Pentagon? Is it that a model comes out and eclipses it? People are actually using these things? They're working out which one is better than the other? Yeah, it's a great question. So for a while we saw consumers were using one generative AI product, if that even. And now they're multi-tenanting across products, but for different use cases. So Gemini, if you look at their user growth, it's basically perfectly correlated to the release of like Nano Banana, VO3, all of these new creative models. Where Claude is really starting to shine, I think, is in the prosumer and work tools.

41:32Ed Ludlow:So Claude Code, of course, had a crazy ramp to a billion in ARR. Claude Cowork is now their product for consumers that's being picked up pretty quickly. They also put Claude in Excel, in Google Sheets. Probably the best way to understand this is both Claude and ChatGPT now have their own app stores. They each have more than 200 apps that they offer access to. But there's only 11 % overlap between them. ChatGPT is leaning in on the mainstream consumer, like fashion, shopping, travel, transportation. Sam Altman has said he wants ChatGPT to be for everyone. Claude is leaning in on like deep premium data sets for scientific work, medical work, data analysis.

42:14Ed Ludlow:And so I think we're seeing them go in slightly different directions in terms of the audience they're trying to win.

42:18Caroline Hyde:Team, let's bring back up the top 100 ranking and then focus in on, I guess, the top 5, 10. I find this, Olivia, so interesting that DeepSeek is so high up. Maybe through explaining the methodology of how you put the ranking together, like some of these names, you kind of touched on it there, but you'd more associate them with enterprise. You'd associate their use outside of the United States, potentially. What are you seeing in the data?

42:43Ed Ludlow:Yeah, DeepSeek is a fascinating one because it was actually higher on prior versions of the list and has dropped down. What basically is happening with DeepSeek on a country-by-country basis is that China and Russia are blocked from using many of the Western AI tools. So China is heavily DeepSeek. It's their number one product. then something like a Daobao from ByteDance, something like Akimi. And Russia is the number two market for DeepSeek. It has fallen off a cliff in terms of usage in the U.S., I think it's fair to say. And I actually think that goes back to the question about what's going to happen with Claude.

43:16Ed Ludlow:Because what we saw with DeepSeek in the U.S. was all press was good press, even if it was bad press, just because people didn't know about the product. And I think the same thing happened with Claude in the past week, in that a couple months ago, market awareness of Claude amongst U.S. consumers was maybe 2%. And so now they're topping the App Store just because many people have never heard of the product and they're downloading it for the first time. So it'll be interesting to see if they're able to retain those users or if like DeepSeek, they will only keep users in countries that can't access other products.

43:49Caroline Hyde:Olivia Moore, Andreessen Horowitz, it's great to have you back on the program. Thank you very much. I want to get back to that breaking news from earlier in the hour. Anthropic is suing the Defense Department after it was labeled a supply chain risk, a designation usually reserved for foreign adversities. Matt Shettleman, helm of Bloomberg Intelligence, joins us now. And Matt, I appreciate you running in. It's a breaking news scenario. But from the Bloomberg Intelligence perspective, what is the react to this latest development where essentially Anthropic is pushing back on the Department of Defense saying, hold on, we don't want you to look elsewhere.

44:24Caroline Hyde:We want you to use our tech. Explain it.

44:27Ed Ludlow:Yeah, so this is exactly what we expected after the developments from not this most recent Friday, but the Friday before when the government announced it was taking this action. That was a tweet from Pete Hegseth announcing this decision. Since then, in the middle of last week, the Defense Department sent the company a two-page letter informing it of this supply chain designation. And now, within hours, we have this lawsuit filed by the company. It pursues what we expected was really a claim that this violates the arbitrary and capricious standard under the Administrative Procedures Act, which basically says that the government has to use reasoned decision making.

45:11Ed Ludlow:It can't penalize a company just because it wants to. It has to look at the law and ask, hey, is Anthropic violating the law? And what we haven't seen really from the Defense Department is any connection between this supply chain statute and anything that Anthropic itself has done. Instead, this has been about a dispute about contract negotiations, an agreement that the Defense Department had agreed to in July. It wanted to change it. Anthropic resisted. All of a sudden, it was deemed a much larger supply chain risk. So I think we're going to see, you know, an immediate court fight on whether that defense department decision should be stayed because it doesn't constitute reasoned decision making.

45:56Ed Ludlow:They talk about how the actions are unprecedented. So what precedent, Matthew, can lawyers, legalese go to in this moment to decide who has the upper hand in what will be a more drawn out conversation to have in front of the courts? Yeah, so under this exact statute, it's rarely been litigated and it's rarely been used. It only dates back from about 2018. But what lawyers are going to look to here is defense decisions under other statutes. And you've seen that in some cases where under other supply chain risk determinations under these other laws, companies have been able to bring lawsuits and say, okay, this is not reasoned decision making.

46:42Ed Ludlow:This violates the law. It's an arbitrary and capricious exercise of your authority. And it's very difficult to beat the Defense Department. That's the first thing to know. The court gives them great deference on national security. So this isn't easy at all for Anthropic. But if the Defense Department didn't try to connect it to this law, and so far, We haven't seen much of a record really connecting it to this law. We've seen criticism of the company's policies, you know, a criticism of it as being a woke company. It's going to take more than that to justify this in court. And that's going to be the question for a judge.

47:18Ed Ludlow:Is there a real basis under this supply chain law that justifies such an extreme action? The company is going to say this inflicts irreparable harm on us and it's not justified under the law.

47:31Caroline Hyde:Matthew, that's why I ask about the idea that Anthropic is challenging the Pentagon in deciding to negotiate with OpenAI, for example, in parallel, right? They will say when this supply chain risk label was given just quickly, well, OK, we'll turn to someone else for their technology. How does that factor in?

47:48Ed Ludlow:I think that raises concerns about the arbitrariness of what's going on here, especially if OpenAI insisted on terms and restrictions that were really not that different from what Anthropic took a hard line on. That's also going to play into whether this was reasoned decision making or whether this was a desire by the Defense Department to make an example of this company. Matthew Schettenham, Bloomberg Intelligence. Fantastic expertise there. We thank you. That does it for this edition of Bloomberg Tech. Ed, once again, your legal degree coming out strong.

48:24Caroline Hyde:Yeah, a little bit. I mean, fascinating coverage of both private markets and public markets. And obviously, in the markets, the war in Iran continues to be a massive factor. Really great conversations worth recapping on the podcast. You know where to find it. It's on the Bloomberg Terminal as well as online on Apple, Spotify and iHeart. It's another big week ahead. And this is Bloomberg Tech.

49:13Ed Ludlow:and 22 grams of fiber per serving. Hero Bread bakes with heart-healthy olive oil and delivers the soft, fluffy, flavorful experience you love. Shop now on Hero.co. Use code IHEART for 10 % off. That's Hero.co. For serving not a low-calorie food, see nutrition information for sodium and sugar content. Explodes noodles, croissants, croissant rolls, pan of chocolats, scones, and biscuits.

49:35Caroline Hyde:With Bali from iShares, you get access to both monthly income and growth potential in one simple ETF. It's the best of both worlds. Discover Bali. iShares large cap premium income active ETF. iShares. The market is yours. Visit www.iShares.com to view perspectives for investment objectives, risks, fees, expenses, and other information that you should read and consider carefully before investing. Risks include principal loss and the use of derivatives, which could increase risks and volatility. Monthly income is not guaranteed. Prepared by BlackRock Investments, LLC.