I'm pretty sure advertisers on iTunes Radio know where you live, what apps, movies, books and music you downloaded in addition to what devices you own. I don't believe any advertiser on Facebook or iTunes Radio can pinpoint a specific user's interests unless they are a friend of this person.
This message is a public information service announcement.
"A frustration I have is that a lot of people increasingly seem to equate an advertising business model with somehow being out of alignment with your customers," Zuckerberg toldTime.
How's this for being out of alignment with your customers?
Quote:
Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard
Zuck: Just ask.
Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS
[Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?
Zuck: People just submitted it.
Zuck: I don't know why.
Zuck: They "trust me"
Zuck: Dumb f***s.
Facebooks' and Google's business is based on suckering people into handing over their personal data. By giving away free services as bait. Dumb f***s indeed.
There is nothing wrong with an advertising based business per se. Television broadcasting comes to mind (at least partially funded by advertising). Like Facebook television broadcasters sell space to advertisers in order to subsidize the cost of their primary product, content. With broadcasters the consumer is also the product when the broadcaster does business with the content providers. Magazines and newspapers are the same. What Facebook and Google do is a very much more advanced form of the same. The main difference being that the customer information broadcasters and other media have to peddle is so much more benign.
But from an end user viewpoint I have always hated television advertising. In fact, since I moved to North America I have all but stopped watching television because I can't stand all the ads. That is why I like Netflix and iTunes. I'd much rather pay for content and have it advertising free. It is also why I like Facebook less and less as ads now pollute the timeline.
What would redeem both Google and Facebook and their likes is if they offered a paid version of their services that could somehow be guaranteed not to be mined or filed with ads.
Paradoxically, I am endlessly fascinated by marketing. If you have a product you need to sell it, right? So what do you do? If you can't tell people you have it who's gonna buy it?
With 100's of millions of users I am sure my views mean nothing to FB but never mind. I few years ago my FB experience was good in that I had a few posts from friends that I enjoyed reading. Now I have loads more, most of which are not from friends and relatives and I don't want. The result, I no longer view FB every day; it is more like once every month or two. Others I know have become feed up with FB and no longer use it. One of FB's selling points was the ability to connect to new friends and relatives and reconnect with long lost ones. It has too many users to go away but if FB carries on the route its on a new user aimed upstart might just come along one day to challenge it. I also preferred the design from about 3 years ago to todays.
This idea that the user is the product and that's all that needs to be said is obviously reductive, and I don't know why anyone is surprised at Zuckerberg defending his business model. I also don't get why people hate Facebook so much. Just don't use it.
Cheap shots, Zuck. The "Apple tax" meme is weak sauce. If Apple was "out of touch" with its customers, they wouldn't have people lining up around the block to be first to buy their products.
And yes, he dodged directly addressing the "you are the product" accusation.
Dumb ass kid has a net worth of $33.3 billion. Pretty good for a dumb ass. I guess he just got lucky or no it was all handed to him... no no he just slapped his keyboard a few times and it appeared.
Because of course, in the ol' US of A, being rich must mean being smart. Gimme a break.
Sucker burg is so out of touch it's ridiculous. As my parents always said if it sounds to good to be true it is and you get what you pay for especially if something is "free". Just noticed my expensive iPhone just autocorrected his name and it's so appropriate. Thank you iPhone
Paradoxically, I am endlessly fascinated by marketing. If you have a product you need to sell it, right? So what do you do? If you can't tell people you have it who's gonna buy it?
Yes, that is a conundrum. Ads have made North American TV watching unbearable. Everywhere you go there's another billboard or whatever polluting the air and what is really worrisome is that the marketing industry has a whole toolbox of psychological tools to fine tune the presentation of a product. Much of it borders on brainwashing. On the other hand, as you note, advertising has an information component to it which is surely useful. I don't know how you get around the issues. It's easy to say, and I feel that, advertising is evil. But then we can't really live without it.
Tim Cook is right for two reasons: 1. Ad supported businesses are in effect subsidised. Like all subsidised businesses, this results in oversupply. Consumers end up consuming more than what they really value. TV is a good example, and subsidised coal powered electricity. 2. If you use ad powered products, you use what the advertising companies want you to see/consume; you give up choice. You allow censorship. Again network TV vs Pay TV are good examples.
Comments
He's a very intelligent dumb-ass.
IMO he is the most selfish lying person in the net business.
IMO he is the most selfish lying person in the net business.
Maybe I should've said "crafty" instead of "intelligent".
If Facebook was in alignment with its customers they would've had a dislike button by now.
It helps to define terms -
I think it's always fair to say a company is perfectly
"in alignment"
with those people it's successfully exploiting.
This message is a public information service announcement.
"A frustration I have is that a lot of people increasingly seem to equate an advertising business model with somehow being out of alignment with your customers," Zuckerberg told Time.
How's this for being out of alignment with your customers?
Zuck: Just ask.
Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS
[Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?
Zuck: People just submitted it.
Zuck: I don't know why.
Zuck: They "trust me"
Zuck: Dumb f***s.
Facebooks' and Google's business is based on suckering people into handing over their personal data. By giving away free services as bait. Dumb f***s indeed.
Source: http://www.tomsguide.com/us/Facebook-Mark-Zuckerberg-Social-Networking-privacy-security,news-6794.html
There is nothing wrong with an advertising based business per se. Television broadcasting comes to mind (at least partially funded by advertising). Like Facebook television broadcasters sell space to advertisers in order to subsidize the cost of their primary product, content. With broadcasters the consumer is also the product when the broadcaster does business with the content providers. Magazines and newspapers are the same. What Facebook and Google do is a very much more advanced form of the same. The main difference being that the customer information broadcasters and other media have to peddle is so much more benign.
But from an end user viewpoint I have always hated television advertising. In fact, since I moved to North America I have all but stopped watching television because I can't stand all the ads. That is why I like Netflix and iTunes. I'd much rather pay for content and have it advertising free. It is also why I like Facebook less and less as ads now pollute the timeline.
What would redeem both Google and Facebook and their likes is if they offered a paid version of their services that could somehow be guaranteed not to be mined or filed with ads.
Paradoxically, I am endlessly fascinated by marketing. If you have a product you need to sell it, right? So what do you do? If you can't tell people you have it who's gonna buy it?
Tim Cook is absolutely right and Zuckerberg knows it.
These AD companies should pay part of their profits to their "Products".
With 100's of millions of users I am sure my views mean nothing to FB but never mind. I few years ago my FB experience was good in that I had a few posts from friends that I enjoyed reading. Now I have loads more, most of which are not from friends and relatives and I don't want. The result, I no longer view FB every day; it is more like once every month or two. Others I know have become feed up with FB and no longer use it. One of FB's selling points was the ability to connect to new friends and relatives and reconnect with long lost ones. It has too many users to go away but if FB carries on the route its on a new user aimed upstart might just come along one day to challenge it. I also preferred the design from about 3 years ago to todays.
This idea that the user is the product and that's all that needs to be said is obviously reductive, and I don't know why anyone is surprised at Zuckerberg defending his business model. I also don't get why people hate Facebook so much. Just don't use it.
Non-story.
I suppose Apple could buy a cross-platform competitor that could wipe FB out. I just don't think they're that interested in doing it.
You mean like buying Twitter?
And yes, he dodged directly addressing the "you are the product" accusation.
Mark Zuckerberg offering his experienced opinion on how to price and sell successful hardware.
Oops.
I mean, how to sell hardware.
Oops.
I mean, how to sell.
(I got it right eventually)
Tim Cook is absolutely right and Zuckerberg knows it.
These AD companies should pay part of their profits to their "Products".
Technically they do. They give you their services for naught.
Dumb ass kid has a net worth of $33.3 billion. Pretty good for a dumb ass. I guess he just got lucky or no it was all handed to him... no no he just slapped his keyboard a few times and it appeared.
You mean like buying Twitter?
Sure. Twitter is another legal minefield just waiting to explode (A) when and if they ever make any money or (B) if they are bought out.
it's so obvious that Cook's "you're the proudct" comment hit home - and hard.
Zuckerberg, the arrongant fool. what a "tell." he should never play poker.
Yes, that is a conundrum. Ads have made North American TV watching unbearable. Everywhere you go there's another billboard or whatever polluting the air and what is really worrisome is that the marketing industry has a whole toolbox of psychological tools to fine tune the presentation of a product. Much of it borders on brainwashing. On the other hand, as you note, advertising has an information component to it which is surely useful. I don't know how you get around the issues. It's easy to say, and I feel that, advertising is evil. But then we can't really live without it.
1. Ad supported businesses are in effect subsidised. Like all subsidised businesses, this results in oversupply. Consumers end up consuming more than what they really value. TV is a good example, and subsidised coal powered electricity.
2. If you use ad powered products, you use what the advertising companies want you to see/consume; you give up choice. You allow censorship. Again network TV vs Pay TV are good examples.