Mark Zuckerberg calls Tim Cook's anti-Facebook retort 'glib,' defends ad-based model

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 72
    vmarks said:
    Nielsen ratings did come from somewhere, though. Advertisers weren't just throwing dollars at TV spend, they were working on spending on time slots when they knew people would be watching, and more than that, when they knew their target audience would be watching. Soap operas are called that because it was that time of day when the housewife was at home, and they could advertise soap to her.
    The Nielsen ratings were/are a small sample of the viewership. If you weren't one of their samplers then no one outside your home/family/friends knew what you were and were not watching.
    Because of the broadcast nature of the system, once the signal had been broadcast the tv stations had no way of knowing what you were watching.
    Now, with TV being delivered over the Internet the broadcasters know from the moment you switch channels what you are watching. That is a data slurp that people seem happy with...

    I do not have my TV or set-top-box connected to the Internet. I have a Satellite Dish and get 100+ channels for free, no subscription (UK Freesat) and no way that the TV stations can know what I'm watching and long may that continue.
    Why?
    Simple really, I hate all forms of advertising. Any product that is repeatedly advertised to me gets put on my 'do not buy' list. Luckily, I record most of the shows I want to watch and skip over the adverts when they appear.
    I worked for an Ad agency for 18 months so I got an insight into how the industry works. It is not nice believe me. I got out as soon as I could afford to. There again, 60+ Males are not key advert targets unless it is for a funeral plan.

     
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 42 of 72
    macseekermacseeker Posts: 545member
  • Reply 43 of 72
    BittySonBittySon Posts: 73member
    Zuck, When you're digging a hole for yourself, it is best to stop digging. Your arguments are asinine. BittySon
    spliff monkeybaconstangwatto_cobra
  • Reply 44 of 72
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 12,920member
    jcs2305 said:
    dysamoria said:
    The arrogance of long-standing privilege when making talking points supposedly standing up for "non-millionaires".

    When did this guy last live as a part of average society? Did he ever actually struggle to get by?

    Is Zuckerburg really trying to appeal to the poor, and to those who would be isolated without the internet? Oh, okay. That's me. I live in social/cultural isolation and in poverty. I need the internet to find any sense of community with my species and I'm just one social security deposit away from being destitute and homeless. I've been lucky in my bad luck, but the republicans and libertarians would love to see me rot in a ditch and they might succeed in making that happen with how they're constantly slandering and sabotaging social support systems and getting people to vote against civilization.

    My opinion about Facebook is the same as billionaire Cook's. I know he's an elitist (however intentional or unintentional on his part). His leadership of Apple demonstrates his elitism. Yet, I fully agree with his position on this topic. I've held this opinion since before Cook was public about his own, so it's not as if Apple has given me my opinion.

    Facebook's users are Facebook's product. The moment advertising becomes the business model, the priority is anything but the comfort, privacy, and preferences of the commodity they deal in.

    Saying Facebook cares about their users is not all that different from saying animal agriculture cares about its cattle.

    The audacity to claim that Facebook is a tool for social networking, and for the non-elite... Everything about Facebook on the user's side is clumsy, intermittently broken, inconsistent, and just plain hostile to communication of any depth.

    Clicking a "like" button (the deeper reactions near constantly broken in mobile browsers) and throwing a one-liner of commentary at people is easy (except for when that's broken, too). Put some effort into a thought by going beyond a couple sentences and the user experience is utterly abysmal.

    I'm not even talking about the nightmare that is the attempt to control the overall experience, either. It's not just the constantly shifting ground of privacy settings; it's everything! Trying to find specific content is almost impossible and the content you are presented is constantly rearranging itself to better serve marketing and data mining. It is the ultimate of "you will have what we give you" elitism.

    Facebook is just one [very bad] tool that can be used to keep track of long-distance friends and acquaintances. We would be better off as a civilization if Facebook were abandoned by everyone and replaced by a system that is paid by subscription (something far less than the exorbitant fees of cable TV) so that it can be built and maintained for the purpose of promoting marketing-bias-free communication, between actual people, for unencumbered social connection online.
    Tim Cook is a billionaire?
    Dysmoria has long since proven he’s not interested in facts or truth, just his anti capitalism agenda, making him a valueless voice in discussion. Plonked his butt long ago. 
    pscooter63SpamSandwichwatto_cobra
  • Reply 45 of 72
    fmalloyfmalloy Posts: 105member
    " ...let the companies that work hard to charge you more convince you that they actually care more about you. Because that sounds ridiculous to me." Neither Apple nor Facebook "care about you". They care about profits and margins and revenue. They have just gone about it in different ways - with Apple, they use the old-school model, selling you a product. With Facebook, they use the new Silicon Valley technology model - sell advertising, and provide the product for free. But as everyone's finding out, they don't actually sell advertising...they sell YOUR personal data to advertisers, and it's true that "you're not the customer, you're the product". I believe that considering these two models, it's in Apple's best interest to care about you, and Facebook's best interest is to care less about you by selling more of your data.
    ronnbaconstangmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 46 of 72
    cpsrocpsro Posts: 3,206member
    Zuck feels justified because Facebook is free, providing service to people who otherwise couldn't afford it or who wouldn't pay.  But if one's mission is to connect people, the service doesn't need "news" and a subscription model could be offered for an ad-free, non-tracking experience.
    Zuck's long history, going all the way back to his college days, belies his "caring" intentions.
    spliff monkeybaconstangwatto_cobra
  • Reply 47 of 72
    fallenjtfallenjt Posts: 4,056member
    This's why I like Apple the most. As Tim said before: Apple didn't make money selling users' information. Google and Facebook? Their primary incomes came from selling users' info. I tried to limit the use of Google services, but have to be honest, their search engine is the king and also their map. Facebook? I can live without it.
    muthuk_vanalingamwatto_cobra
  • Reply 48 of 72
    cpsrocpsro Posts: 3,206member
    macseeker said:
    Remember several years ago, when FB's security configuration changed--but the website still wasn't nearly so complicated as it is today--and several personal photographs of Zuck's were suddenly visible to the public, because Zuck didn't understand the new security settings?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 49 of 72
    fallenjtfallenjt Posts: 4,056member
    jcs2305 said:
    dysamoria said:
    The arrogance of long-standing privilege when making talking points supposedly standing up for "non-millionaires".

    When did this guy last live as a part of average society? Did he ever actually struggle to get by?

    Is Zuckerburg really trying to appeal to the poor, and to those who would be isolated without the internet? Oh, okay. That's me. I live in social/cultural isolation and in poverty. I need the internet to find any sense of community with my species and I'm just one social security deposit away from being destitute and homeless. I've been lucky in my bad luck, but the republicans and libertarians would love to see me rot in a ditch and they might succeed in making that happen with how they're constantly slandering and sabotaging social support systems and getting people to vote against civilization.

    My opinion about Facebook is the same as billionaire Cook's. I know he's an elitist (however intentional or unintentional on his part). His leadership of Apple demonstrates his elitism. Yet, I fully agree with his position on this topic. I've held this opinion since before Cook was public about his own, so it's not as if Apple has given me my opinion.

    Facebook's users are Facebook's product. The moment advertising becomes the business model, the priority is anything but the comfort, privacy, and preferences of the commodity they deal in.

    Saying Facebook cares about their users is not all that different from saying animal agriculture cares about its cattle.

    The audacity to claim that Facebook is a tool for social networking, and for the non-elite... Everything about Facebook on the user's side is clumsy, intermittently broken, inconsistent, and just plain hostile to communication of any depth.

    Clicking a "like" button (the deeper reactions near constantly broken in mobile browsers) and throwing a one-liner of commentary at people is easy (except for when that's broken, too). Put some effort into a thought by going beyond a couple sentences and the user experience is utterly abysmal.

    I'm not even talking about the nightmare that is the attempt to control the overall experience, either. It's not just the constantly shifting ground of privacy settings; it's everything! Trying to find specific content is almost impossible and the content you are presented is constantly rearranging itself to better serve marketing and data mining. It is the ultimate of "you will have what we give you" elitism.

    Facebook is just one [very bad] tool that can be used to keep track of long-distance friends and acquaintances. We would be better off as a civilization if Facebook were abandoned by everyone and replaced by a system that is paid by subscription (something far less than the exorbitant fees of cable TV) so that it can be built and maintained for the purpose of promoting marketing-bias-free communication, between actual people, for unencumbered social connection online.
    Tim Cook is a billionaire?
    No he's not. His network is probably a little over half of $billion.
  • Reply 50 of 72
    fallenjtfallenjt Posts: 4,056member
    I wish Apple creates its own social network and outs FB completely. Apple created kiss-ass iMessage service, and I bet it will do well with i-social network.
    GG1watto_cobra
  • Reply 51 of 72
    macseekermacseeker Posts: 545member
    cpsro said:
    macseeker said:
    Remember several years ago, when FB's security configuration changed--but the website still wasn't nearly so complicated as it is today--and several personal photographs of Zuck's were suddenly visible to the public, because Zuck didn't understand the new security settings?
    I wasn't aware of that.  Anyway, I'm not a member of facebook.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 52 of 72
    badmonkbadmonk Posts: 1,304member
    Oh Mark such a staunch defender of the common man.  But the problem is that Apple has been consistent in its privacy rhetoric and you are late to the game.  If it is true that FaceBook tracks people outside of their use of the mobile app or a browser or if your company is pilfering contact data or if you allow others to do it you have a problem.

    Apple charges a fair price in my opinion for devices that are longer lived than their competitors and make more of an attempt to ensure that the sourcing of raw materials, the manufacturing and recycling of the products don’t conpletely screw the planet.

    Nice job trying to deflect.  This time I don’t think it is going to blow over.  I deleted my FB account.  I am contemplating doing the same to be Instagram account.
    edited April 2018 watto_cobra
  • Reply 53 of 72
    rogifan_newrogifan_new Posts: 4,297member
    jbdragon said:
    If Cook is really concerned about Facebook and Google he could remove all their apps from the App Store. He could replace Google as the default search engine in iOS. And he could tell his teams to make Apple software and services so good no one who owns an Apple device would want to use Gmail, Google Docs or Google Maps.

    i just upgraded my wireless router in my house. I bought a Google mesh system. I would rather have bought something from Apple but they don’t make it so Google it was. And so far it’s been working incredibly well.


    If anything, Google is worse than Facebook. Facebook you can flee from, Google, there's no escaping that, other than going to iOS. If anything Google is more invasive than Facebook. Google pays APple a lot of money to be the default Search on iOS. First thing I do is change it right over to DuckDuckGo. No need to use Google Services either if you don't want to or limit what you do to like only gmail. Even then, Google is scanning those.

    WOW, you actually got Google's Mess system? That's the WORST one of the bunch!!!! Did you read any reviews on MESH systems? Sounds like you blindly just went and got it because it was Google's. It's a pile of crap!!! I would have instead looked at the Eero or the Netgear Orbi. Depending on the house. PC Mag 2018 review have Editor's Choice to the Linksys Velop and the Netgear Orbi. Buying Google?!?! Instead from a company who actually specializes in this area?!?!
    I didn’t buy it because it was Google. Eero was more than I wanted to spend and I’ve not had the best like with Linksys. Anyway so far it’s working flawlessly. That’s all that matters to me.
  • Reply 54 of 72
    rogifan_newrogifan_new Posts: 4,297member
    macxpress said:
    If Cook is really concerned about Facebook and Google he could remove all their apps from the App Store. He could replace Google as the default search engine in iOS. And he could tell his teams to make Apple software and services so good no one who owns an Apple device would want to use Gmail, Google Docs or Google Maps.

    i just upgraded my wireless router in my house. I bought a Google mesh system. I would rather have bought something from Apple but they don’t make it so Google it was. And so far it’s been working incredibly well.
    And they're logging everything you do...in typical Google fashion. No thanks! 

    Don't touch ANYTHING GOOGLE with a 100ft pole!!!!
    Really? Tell that to the tens of millions of iOS users who use google services on their iOS devices. If Apple removed Google apps from the App Store tomorrow they’d lose millions of customers.
  • Reply 55 of 72
    rogifan_newrogifan_new Posts: 4,297member
    Soli said:
    If Cook is really concerned about Facebook and Google he could remove all their apps from the App Store. He could replace Google as the default search engine in iOS. And he could tell his teams to make Apple software and services so good no one who owns an Apple device would want to use Gmail, Google Docs or Google Maps.

    i just upgraded my wireless router in my house. I bought a Google mesh system. I would rather have bought something from Apple but they don’t make it so Google it was. And so far it’s been working incredibly well.
    Their app isn't (yet) violating App Store rules so it's there. It no longer has deep ties to the OS, like it was back when Jobs was alive. The user gets a choice. You had a choice on which of the hundreds of router systems to buy and you choose to get Google's? Why? It seems hard to talk about Google invading your privacy and being unscrupulous and then grabbing the one item where every piece of data in your house will pass through it. I'm perplexed by that. I use Google every day from business email to search (I've tried DDG but didn't care for it), but I think I'll draw the line at a Google router. I say this is one of the few regulars here that doesn't seem to have any ill will for the company.
    I don’t have any issues with Google. I don’t use their services (other than search and sometimes maps) because I don’t have a need to. My point is specifically for those that do they should be angry at Apple for not making best in class software and services that would make Google irrelevant on Apple platforms. And if this is so important to Tim Cook why is Google still the default search engine on iOS?
  • Reply 56 of 72
    dewmedewme Posts: 5,423member
    thompr said:
    dewme said:
    Facebook is a content delivery company that charges advertisers to interleave their ads into the content. Facebook is essentially a "free" radio or television broadcast model with hundreds of millions of content provider channels, i.e., individuals who post on Facebook, and hundreds of millions of viewers, most of whom are also content providers. Using the radio/television analogy, Apple sells the radios and televisions and Facebook provides (some of) the content that gets played on the radios and television.
    But the problem is that Facebook does more than just present ads for other companies in their content.  They also provide access to their users' private information for targeted advertising.  This is where your analogy ends and the problems begin.
    Yes, I agree, the analogy describing the symbiotic relationship between Apple and Facebook does not address anything about what Facebook does all on its own with user related content. 




    watto_cobra
  • Reply 57 of 72
    JFC_PAJFC_PA Posts: 934member
    Facebook is charging it's customers. The price is not currency it is their privacy. For me, that cost may be too high.
    It’s alwsys best to remember: TANSTAAFL. 
  • Reply 58 of 72
    rogifan_newrogifan_new Posts: 4,297member
    If Cook is really concerned about Facebook and Google he could remove all their apps from the App Store. He could replace Google as the default search engine in iOS. And he could tell his teams to make Apple software and services so good no one who owns an Apple device would want to use Gmail, Google Docs or Google Maps.
    What nonsense. Apple would be crucified for banning those apps since they don’t violate app store rules. You’re free to act in your own interests and not use them. 
    I don’t use Facebook and I don’t have issues with Google. I’m talking about people who do. 
  • Reply 59 of 72
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,038member
    gatorguy said:
    Soli said:
    If Cook is really concerned about Facebook and Google he could remove all their apps from the App Store. He could replace Google as the default search engine in iOS. And he could tell his teams to make Apple software and services so good no one who owns an Apple device would want to use Gmail, Google Docs or Google Maps.

    i just upgraded my wireless router in my house. I bought a Google mesh system. I would rather have bought something from Apple but they don’t make it so Google it was. And so far it’s been working incredibly well.
    Their app isn't (yet) violating App Store rules so it's there. It no longer has deep ties to the OS, like it was back when Jobs was alive. The user gets a choice. You had a choice on which of the hundreds of router systems to buy and you choose to get Google's? Why? It seems hard to talk about Google invading your privacy and being unscrupulous and then grabbing the one item where every piece of data in your house will pass through it. I'm perplexed by that. I use Google every day from business email to search (I've tried DDG but didn't care for it), but I think I'll draw the line at a Google router. I say this is one of the few regulars here that doesn't seem to have any ill will for the company.
    Why worries about the Google routers Soli? Your ISP is probably collecting much more personal data from you, but almost no one realizes it's going on.
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2017/03/30/fcc-privacy-rules-how-isps-will-actually-sell-your-data/#4127ffff21d1
    Google tells you upfront what they collect and what the purpose is and it might surprise you if you look. For instance did you know that unlike your ISP Google does not log any of the websites you visit, not one, nor do they collect any of the content that flows across your network? They don't sell your data, but the company you pay to connect you to the internet might. 
    https://support.google.com/wifi/answer/6246642?hl=en
    In general, yes, but I use a VPN for that very reason.
  • Reply 60 of 72
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    "You're glib, Tim!"

    https://youtu.be/-uaRw0quwoY


Sign In or Register to comment.