Mark Zuckerberg calls Apple CEO Tim Cook's view on ad-supported business 'ridiculous'
Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg had harsh words for those --?including Apple CEO Tim Cook --?who have called the social network's ad-supported business model bad for consumers, saying that such comments are "ridiculous."
"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. "I think it's the most ridiculous concept. What, you think because you're paying Apple that you're somehow in alignment with them? If you were in alignment with them, then they'd make their products a lot cheaper!"
He was referring to comments made by Cook in an open letter penned by the Apple CEO in September, in which Cook spelled out Apple's approach to consumer privacy. Apple's is superior, Cook argued, because the company does not depend on user data to make money.
"A few years ago, users of Internet services began to realize that when an online service is free, you're not the customer," Cook wrote at the time. "You're the product."
Facebook has not come under the same powerful privacy microscope as Google, though the social network has had its share of public relations stumbles, particularly in relation to reports of its participation in the NSA's PRISM program. Zuckerberg told The Atlantic last year that the association had harmed public perception.
"The trust metrics for all of them went down when PRISM came out," he said at the time. "This is one of the reasons we are pushing so much for transparency."
"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. "I think it's the most ridiculous concept. What, you think because you're paying Apple that you're somehow in alignment with them? If you were in alignment with them, then they'd make their products a lot cheaper!"
He was referring to comments made by Cook in an open letter penned by the Apple CEO in September, in which Cook spelled out Apple's approach to consumer privacy. Apple's is superior, Cook argued, because the company does not depend on user data to make money.
"A few years ago, users of Internet services began to realize that when an online service is free, you're not the customer," Cook wrote at the time. "You're the product."
Facebook has not come under the same powerful privacy microscope as Google, though the social network has had its share of public relations stumbles, particularly in relation to reports of its participation in the NSA's PRISM program. Zuckerberg told The Atlantic last year that the association had harmed public perception.
"The trust metrics for all of them went down when PRISM came out," he said at the time. "This is one of the reasons we are pushing so much for transparency."
Comments
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.
Ad-supported business I suppose are a necessary evil in the world of "free" services such as Google and Facebook. They certainly made information and connecting accessible to the masses, but not for one moment am I going to sit back and let some rich-punk tell me that I'm not being played like a violin.
Just fess-up and admit it, but don't sugarcoat it. Selling my info is a bitter-pill to have to swallow.
I tolerate Facebook, that's all. Its an ugly, disjointed and frustrating user experience.
So when Facebook inserts ads in my feed for internet marketers trying to sell me their snake oil, guess what, it really, really p*****s me off.
In this way Facebook is not unlike a telephone network.
He's right about one thing, though. Facebook's interests are absolutely aligned with their customers'. What he neglects to mention is that the customers are the advertisers, not the users.
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 fucks
I don't have much use for Facebook or Twitter, but e-mail and iMessage, as well as SMS are useful to me. I do not particularly like to see ads all over the page when I am on my computer, phone or iPad. However, I do like to be able to use Reader to eliminate ads from articles I want to read. All said, there has to be some quid pro quo. No Ads, no Facebook. I buy Apple products and I do not mind if Apple has an embedded cost. I trust Apple, but I do not trust social Networks, nor do I trust Google. Maybe I am wrong, but until Apple gives me a good reason why I should not trust them, I will continue to do so. Privacy is very important. Don't think so ? Wait until your social network conversations, or "likes" cause you to lose a job or an offer. Don't blow your future.
This isn't news - what does anyone think Mark Z. would say in response? That his company mines data and then sells that data and that you as a FB user are really just a bunch of data to be sold to the anyone and everyone willing to buy it? If the movie was accurate in its portrayal of the founding of FB, then perhaps Mark didn't initially think of using and selling the data he collected, but clearly that is exactly what has created value for FB.
He's right about one thing, though. Facebook's interests are absolutely aligned with their customers'. What he neglects to mention is that the customers are the advertisers, not the users.
QFT
"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. "I think it's the most ridiculous concept. What, you think because you're paying Apple that you're somehow in alignment with them? If you were in alignment with them, then they'd make their products a lot cheaper!"
While everyone certainly wants everything they buy to be as cheap as possible, there are many of us who understand what goes into making products, and who wouldn't be willing to sacrifice build quality and user experience (including ads and data mining) to get that lower price.
For the people who are willing to make that tradeoff, there are certainly plenty of cheap PCs and low-end Android phones/tablets out there for them to choose instead of Apple products. The fact that so many people choose Apple products over others that are lower-priced speaks to the fact that "cheap" isn't the only thing on people's minds. So I think Apple's business model is indeed aligned with the mindset of a lot of consumers. If it wasn't, they wouldn't have stayed in business for so long.
get back to us in 5 years prat when your excuse of a business has gone down the historical toilet.
Don't bother arguing with dumb ass kids like Mark Z.!!
Time to kick the Facebook app out of the App Store.
He's playing with fire saying crap like this:
Oxford dictionary:
Customer = A person who buys goods or services from a shop or business.
Consumer = A person or thing that uses something.
Product = An article that is manufactured or refined for sale.
hence someone using Google or Facebook is a consumer not a customer. He or she uses the product but does not pay for it. The data of the consumer here ofter ends up being the product that Google or Facebook sell to their actual customers, which are other companies and ad agencies.
The Consumers of Apple products are most often at the same time apple customers since they pay for the products apple sells to them.
There is just nothing to see here, Zuckerberg is flat wrong. Google could make the case that they are selling some stuff to end users, but thats certainly only a small part of their business.
I'm so glad that I never once signed up for that site.
Zuckerberg can't hold Cook's jock strap. He's a kid who invented something cool. Now Facebook is practically Orwellian. Of course he's going to mock Cook's comments...his whole financial empire rests on exploiting data.
Advertising per se isn't out of alignment with the customer and doesn't have to impact privacy. Obviously TV and radio have been ad-supported since forever and that has no privacy implications (just costs the consumer time). And I can imagine an ad-supported free-service that provided customized ads without compromising privacy. But I don't believe that Google and Facebook are willing to make that commitment.
Mark please...
Oxford dictionary:
Product: - An article or substance that is manufactured or refined for sale
Customer: - A person who buys goods or services from a shop or business
Consumer: - A person or thing that eats or uses something
hence we are all consumers of Facebook and Google. Our data is their product, which they sell to their customers (called ad agencies and other companies). Nothing wrong with that as long as we are calling a spade a spade...
Advertising per se isn't out of alignment with the customer and doesn't have to impact privacy. Obviously TV and radio have been ad-supported since forever and that has no privacy implications (just costs the consumer time). And I can imagine an ad-supported free-service that provided customized ads without compromising privacy. But I don't believe that Google and Facebook are willing to make that commitment.
Facebook's mobile profits are way up, but how much of that is dependent on Apple? I think he's more dependent on the iPhone than he'd like to admit.