Advertising is psychological warfare designed to separate you from your money with the smallest expense to the seller. Thus users of Facebook and other such services are under constant mental attack. It gets tiring after a while.
Suckerberg is simply a douchbag. Obviously he wants to insure that his customers have no privacy so he can make money selling ads to advertisers. He also has Aspergers so has problems with social communication in the first place.
Opinions opinions opinions ..... everyone has one. Some of them are really Zucked Up.
I think BMW way overcharges for its products. I think I should be able to get an M3 for $20K, or less. But if you go check my driveway you'll see what my opinion buys me. No BMW and no M3.
Value is in the eye of the customer. Apple's customers obviously believe they are getting a good value from their Apple purchases. When I think about acquiring something from Apple I always have to make a value judgement. In most cases the best value choice is obvious and is Apple. I give something in the form of money and get something back in the form of a delightful product or service. I am an Apple customer, no doubt about it.
On the other hand, with FaceBook there is no value decision. I reluctantly use just enough of it to stay in touch with family and friends - at their prodding. But I constantly feel as though FaceBook is trying to steal as much as it can from me. They want to be paid too, but not in cash, they want to be paid in privacy and history and personal data so they can sell it to their real customers, the advertisers. With FaceBook you are truly part of their product. To believe otherwise is totally warped thinking. Follow the money, it never lies.
I think Fuckerberg is an imbecile if he doesn't realise that Apple products are dirt cheap for what you get. Not free but a lot cheaper than the alternatives when it comes to actual real world value and length of life. I can't believe people get suckered into £50 a month 2 year contracts for Samscum crap when they could buy Apple products outright get a cheap payg plan and have a phone still worth something even upto 4 years later. As for FaceBook I still aint going to get sucked into that pile of nonsense.
[quote name="Tallest Skil" url="/t/183748/mark-zuckerberg-calls-apple-ceo-tim-cooks-view-on-ad-supported-business-ridiculous/80#post_2648458 To clarify for those who think otherwise, we’re not saying this is okay."]
By using Facebook it doesn't matter if you are saying it is not OK. If you are using the product they don't care what you think.
Mr. Zuckerberg maybe smart, but he sure is not very wise. I can't even imagine putting him in the same league as Jobs, Gates, JP Morgan, or Rockefeller. He's a young kid who had an idea, started it in his dorm, cheated one of his partners (allegedly) and had the software, computing power at low cost to do it.
Cook is a logistics genius who is managing the worlds most valuable company. He has a little more credibility than young Mark. And if you're no Facebook and don't think you're the product, then I don't now what to tell ya.
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.
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.
No, he was only part of ideas a bunch of friends had, after which he broke into the universities campus computers and stole information. Charges were dropped as he was, what, 21 I believe, and the rest is history.
To get more insight in the early days of FB, one should take note of some things that happened:
CONNECTU LAWSUIT
Harvard students Cameron Winklevoss, Tyler Winklevoss, and Nishita Narendra accused Zuckerberg of fraudulently letting them believe he would help them build a social network called HarvardConnection.com (later called ConnectU). [10] They filed a lawsuit in 2004 but was dismissed without prejudice on March 28, 2007. It was refiled soon thereafter in U.S. District Court in Boston, and a preliminary hearing was scheduled for July 25, 2007.[11] At the hearing the judge told ConnectU parts of their complaint were not sufficiently pled and gave them the ability to refile an amended complaint. On June 25, 2008, the case was settled and Facebook agreed to pay a $65 million settlement.
Mr. Zuckerberg maybe smart, but he sure is not very wise. I can't even imagine putting him in the same league as Jobs, Gates, JP Morgan, or Rockefeller. He's a young kid who had an idea, started it in his dorm, cheated one of his partners (allegedly) and had the software, computing power at low cost to do it.
Cook is a logistics genius who is managing the worlds most valuable company. He has a little more credibility than young Mark. And if you're no Facebook and don't think you're the product, then I don't now what to tell ya.
I think Tim is right, if you are not paying then you are the product. But that doesn't mean advertising based business models are evil. Most ads are harmless.
Just choose to pay a few bucks or choose to get spammed, whatever you're comfortable with. But always remember, as Robert Heinlein said, TANSTAALF.
I'm running adblock+ and ghostery along with a separate script blocker on firefox. I don't get spammed very much. Of course you can also reroute known ad servers to a junk port .
Quite right Tim and wrong Zuckerberg. Advertising produces nothing of value, just wastes time. In the advertising model it's the company and their advertisers against the consumer.
When the internet was first envisioned, a micro payments system was consider as a way to allow people to charge for content. A viable model for micro payments was not agreed and the idea was shelved. What we have today is no sensible way for media companies to make money from their sites and content.
Be it newspapers or media aggregators like social media sites, the issue is the same, they need to make money.
Consumers are reluctant to pay each site a subscription fee, since the overall cost of this would be high and the complexity horrible.
A easy answer has been to use ad's as a way of generating revenue. But ad's lie! They lie to the advertisers and they lie to the consumer. People place ad's to try and create awareness and sales for their products and services, but as we all know virtually every click on an ad we (as consumers) make is by mistake, because we miss the close button. advertising agencies know this, but hide this from the people who pay them to place ad's.
Pop up windows or pop-up regions on web pages annoy, as do unrequested posts on Facebook. BUT they are the way companies make money, so without a better way they will continue.
Given the choice virtually ever consumer of web content would choose to not receive ad's. In fact this has been seen, web browsers have added a button to block pop-up's which has forced advertizers to use other methods of displaying their ad's. THINK ABOUT THAT, consumers had the choice, and chose to block pop-up ad's and so advertisers chose to ignore the wishes of their prospects and continued to annoy them with other sneaky ways of displaying ad's.
There are answers to this, but each of them requires advertising companies to change, and they prefer to keep the business model that works for them.
Facebook without ad's has almost no revenue stream. So they will continue to push their drug.
The difference between Facebook and Apple is that I elect to go and buy Apple's products. Facebook is something I only use because I have to because some of my friends are there.
You don't have to. I've done just fine maintaining contact with my friends without FB. They want you to think you need it. You don't. Enjoy a Facebook free life, it feels good
Comments
Advertising is psychological warfare designed to separate you from your money with the smallest expense to the seller. Thus users of Facebook and other such services are under constant mental attack. It gets tiring after a while.
Apple way overcharges for its products. If everyone charged like Apple, we could not afford to buy services that are now advertising supported.
Would you really want to pay for Facebook and Google? Google gives us a lot of stuff in exchange for advertising to us.
And, Apple is being a bit disingenuous, too, saying they don't sell our data. They do have iAd after all.
What the... Zack's head is either shiny or mottled.
Apple's prices are coming down. FB functionality is headed in the same direction.
Try playing videos from FB on your iPad. It's clumsy and slow.
Opinions opinions opinions ..... everyone has one. Some of them are really Zucked Up.
I think BMW way overcharges for its products. I think I should be able to get an M3 for $20K, or less. But if you go check my driveway you'll see what my opinion buys me. No BMW and no M3.
Value is in the eye of the customer. Apple's customers obviously believe they are getting a good value from their Apple purchases. When I think about acquiring something from Apple I always have to make a value judgement. In most cases the best value choice is obvious and is Apple. I give something in the form of money and get something back in the form of a delightful product or service. I am an Apple customer, no doubt about it.
On the other hand, with FaceBook there is no value decision. I reluctantly use just enough of it to stay in touch with family and friends - at their prodding. But I constantly feel as though FaceBook is trying to steal as much as it can from me. They want to be paid too, but not in cash, they want to be paid in privacy and history and personal data so they can sell it to their real customers, the advertisers. With FaceBook you are truly part of their product. To believe otherwise is totally warped thinking. Follow the money, it never lies.
Not free but a lot cheaper than the alternatives when it comes to actual real world value and length of life.
I can't believe people get suckered into £50 a month 2 year contracts for Samscum crap when they could buy Apple products outright get a cheap payg plan and have a phone still worth something even upto 4 years later.
As for FaceBook I still aint going to get sucked into that pile of nonsense.
To clarify for those who think otherwise, we’re not saying this is okay.
The hand points to the moon; the fool stares at the finger.
A spectacular analysis of NASA’s accomplishments in the last 30 years.
To clarify for those who think otherwise, we’re not saying this is okay."]
By using Facebook it doesn't matter if you are saying it is not OK. If you are using the product they don't care what you think.
A spectacular analysis of NASA’s accomplishments in the last 30 years.
Yeah, Hubble, Cassini, the International Space Station, the Mars Science Laboratory, and much more were faked!
Cook is a logistics genius who is managing the worlds most valuable company. He has a little more credibility than young Mark. And if you're no Facebook and don't think you're the product, then I don't now what to tell ya.
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.
Asses come in all sizes, shapes, and net worths.
You’re either delusional or a finger-looker yourself.
?·???? LOL!
No, he was only part of ideas a bunch of friends had, after which he broke into the universities campus computers and stole information. Charges were dropped as he was, what, 21 I believe, and the rest is history.
To get more insight in the early days of FB, one should take note of some things that happened:
Or search for how the company was founded, doesn't really matter what site you visit.
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-facebook-was-founded-2010-3
800M daily users? So, roughly 6B aren't on FB. Got it.
Excellent points, excellent post.
I think Tim is right, if you are not paying then you are the product. But that doesn't mean advertising based business models are evil. Most ads are harmless.
Just choose to pay a few bucks or choose to get spammed, whatever you're comfortable with. But always remember, as Robert Heinlein said, TANSTAALF.
I'm running adblock+ and ghostery along with a separate script blocker on firefox. I don't get spammed very much. Of course you can also reroute known ad servers to a junk port
.
When the internet was first envisioned, a micro payments system was consider as a way to allow people to charge for content. A viable model for micro payments was not agreed and the idea was shelved. What we have today is no sensible way for media companies to make money from their sites and content.
Be it newspapers or media aggregators like social media sites, the issue is the same, they need to make money.
Consumers are reluctant to pay each site a subscription fee, since the overall cost of this would be high and the complexity horrible.
A easy answer has been to use ad's as a way of generating revenue. But ad's lie! They lie to the advertisers and they lie to the consumer. People place ad's to try and create awareness and sales for their products and services, but as we all know virtually every click on an ad we (as consumers) make is by mistake, because we miss the close button. advertising agencies know this, but hide this from the people who pay them to place ad's.
Pop up windows or pop-up regions on web pages annoy, as do unrequested posts on Facebook. BUT they are the way companies make money, so without a better way they will continue.
Given the choice virtually ever consumer of web content would choose to not receive ad's. In fact this has been seen, web browsers have added a button to block pop-up's which has forced advertizers to use other methods of displaying their ad's. THINK ABOUT THAT, consumers had the choice, and chose to block pop-up ad's and so advertisers chose to ignore the wishes of their prospects and continued to annoy them with other sneaky ways of displaying ad's.
There are answers to this, but each of them requires advertising companies to change, and they prefer to keep the business model that works for them.
Facebook without ad's has almost no revenue stream. So they will continue to push their drug.
The difference between Facebook and Apple is that I elect to go and buy Apple's products. Facebook is something I only use because I have to because some of my friends are there.
You don't have to. I've done just fine maintaining contact with my friends without FB. They want you to think you need it. You don't. Enjoy a Facebook free life, it feels good
The Ecosystem
A movie about Tim Cook
Directed by David Fincher
Tagline - You don't sell 500 Million Devices without pissing off a few CEOs.