Reading between the lines, Zuck's outburst says to me that he is on the defensive.
I imagine that he wanted deeper ties in iOS, but Cook said no. Hence Cook's September statement. As the chickens start coming home to roost, the panic begins.
I would much rather be a part of the former than have my info given out freely.
I really don't understand how this myth has spread so dramatically throughout the Apple fandom. Why on earth would Facebook or Google sell their users' information to advertisers? That would be like selling their secret sauce. What they are selling is limited time access to the users' eyeballs. If they sold the underlying data the advertisers would have no reason to keep coming back. Your data is the protected crown jewels. They aren't selling it. Advertisers buy access to your screen while you surf. That's it. There are plenty of companies that do sell your personal information like Acxiom or Exact Data. These are data brokers flying under the radar who sell to advertisers, insurance companies and even the government. Google and Facebook hoard your information and use it to target ads but they don't sell it or give it away.
"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."
Tim gets it.
I am not interested in managing an information economy. Social Networking needs to become an open platform like email so that if the user doesn't like the terms of one provider they are able to migrate to another that provides terms they are in alignment with. The fact that Facebook is a proprietary platform that requires you to use the service just to connect with other people that use the service is a terrible thing. Just because the swill is good enough for the uninformed masses doesn't mean the rest of us should be forced (though a lack of social network interoperability) to dine at the trough.
I would much rather be a part of the former than have my info given out freely.
I really don't understand how this myth has spread so dramatically throughout the Apple fandom. Why on earth would Facebook or Google sell their users' information to advertisers? That would be like selling their secret sauce. What they are selling is limited time access to the users' eyeballs. If they sold the underlying data the advertisers would have no reason to keep coming back. Your data is the protected crown jewels. They aren't selling it. Advertisers buy access to your screen while you surf. That's it. There are plenty of companies that do sell your personal information like Acxiom or Exact Data. These are data brokers flying under the radar who sell to advertisers, insurance companies and even the government. Google and Facebook hoard your information and use it to target ads but they don't sell it or give it away.
The problem with personalised ads is that they're so dumb. I've bought some printer ink on Amazon, so I constantly get it in my recommendations, even though I haven't bought any for years.
They're also spooky. If you look up sensitive subjects, like death, you really don't want to be bombarded with related ads.
The advertising agency seemed to thrive for some centuries before privacy started to be removed; I'm sure they can get by in the future without privacy erosion, too, even if legislation is required to enforce it.
Some decades ago, a large proportion of ads on English tv used to be tolerable or even entertaining and funny. Now, there's so much political correctness that the fun has gone all out of them.
Thank goodness for iTunes, where one can watch tv to one's heart's content without a single advertisement.
Facebook is the biggest online Social media platform, and Google is the largest search engine and they use ppls data, and whether you like it or not seem to be here for the long haul. I live Apple and do not mind their higher price for privacy, however get over it and stop blowing crap out of proportion !! Neither Google or Facebook has f@@ked up my life or doubt they ever will, a few ads on my pages who the hell cares?! Every website I visit has ads/commercials, A lot of ppl acting like it is something new, been about for years get over it , here to stay end of!
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.
and the 33.3Billion is because investors like is monetization model, since they are paying 4X more than apple (P/E is 72 vs 18 for apple).
What is key to Zuck's argument is that Hardware will eventually commoditize ('make them cheaper' is his way of saying he'd love everyone to one an iPhone/iPad, and that Apple's profits are a barrier to entry for that platform, and he'd have more people using a better Facebook). And he's assuming that Facebook can continue to penetrate markets and expand to consume all social networks, and then... they can start charging [more] for premium services, and eventually, everything but your timeline will be 'premium.' Given Metcalf's law, the value to the consumer of Facebook goes up as more people join it, therefore it will be harder to leave it.
Hardware on the other hand, will be commodity soon. You have to make the money now, lest you lose the opportunity. In a perfect world, HW will disrupt, then attract the old SW to it, as well as new SW and functions [uber wouldn't work with a PC world], it will disrupt because of the new capabilities, and then the other HW competition will move in and try to undercut the first mover.
So, in response to Zuckerberg, one can only say, Facebook is pervasively popular because of the iPhone, and not only are there eyeballs there, but the eyeballs are ALWAYS there.
I say if Apple lowers it's HW profit say to lower the cost of the phone $100, Apple should charge FaceBook (all for profit companies) to run on it's platform, (consider it rent... they pay AWS and Akamai and all those companies to help 'deliver content' to consumers, why not the gatekeeper of the eyeball.
Say a 1 cent an hour (AWS charges 1.7). 651Million Users, Say 1/2 use Apple devices to Facebook 2 hours a day, $2.4B a year (that would pay for about $20 the profit of an iPhone/iPad). (or 4 dollars per year per FB user). Oh, and Apple STILL doesn't have to shill it's users to the highest bidder.
Snap... Facebook only MAKES 3.5B a year. I bet that P/E ratio of 72 would cut down to 20 real quick, and Zucks value would be 1/3rd of that is today.
?Amazon... loses money more often than not.
Ebay... eaking out a profit now but is at a 2.4B rate.
I guess 'app-impressions' cost model would really mess up Facebook and the internet economy in general.
All these apps would then charge for the SW, and double the app impression rate. Experience would suck.
Bottom line is, Facebook should be thankful Apple charges what it does to the end consumer, lest Apple comes after the apps that ride on the gravy train.
(~1:40) You want to take off the hoodie Mark? It is a little hot in here, talking about privacy.
Concerning this comment he made, what do we expect he's going to say? He's not going to say anything to put people off using Facebook. He has a fidouchery responsibility to his owners.
The sad thing is that people will hear his comments and nod in agreement that Apple could make their products cheaper as if that's somehow equivalent. It's not like the products could be lower than their build costs:
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.
If the lack of something does not adversely effect your physical, mental, or emotional health, it is not necessary. I like grapefruit juice, but it isn’t necessary. It isn’t even necessary as a source of vitamin C if other options, such as orange juice, continue to exist.
If what Zuckerberg and Facebook do is so offensive, why are there 800+ million users everyday? Never been on Facebook and never will. I am always curious as to why 10 years ago no one had Facebook and survived just fine, but now somehow we can't live without. We will tolerate any abuse and misuse for the most trivial of reasons.
A crucial fact that Facebook and Google will never admit to, is that the cost of a device such as an iPhone or Mac is utterly trivial against the amount of time one spends using/employing/depending on the device or system and therefore, the device's or system's true value. (This does not extend to the cost of getting on line, which is beyond Apple's and other's domains and is often ridiculous.) A successful, profitable Apple, is a successful, profitable and empowered me.
If what Zuckerberg and Facebook do is so offensive, why are there 800+ million users everyday? Never been on Facebook and never will. I am always curious as to why 10 years ago no one had Facebook and survived just fine, but now somehow we can't live without. We will tolerate any abuse and misuse for the most trivial of reasons.
What abuse? a few ads down the side of the screen, OMG just saw them OMG why didn't I get annoyed before?! you know why coz they don't.....don't comment if you never saw the ads, and somehow think you have an opinion on something you never saw lol
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.
And if you pay more than the rest of the competitors you get ad free, there is a price to pay for both formats, no matter what ppl think, they are businesses after all
If what Zuckerberg and Facebook do is so offensive, why are there 800+ million users everyday? Never been on Facebook and never will. I am always curious as to why 10 years ago no one had Facebook and survived just fine, but now somehow we can't live without. We will tolerate any abuse and misuse for the most trivial of reasons.
Or ignorance of the long-term and hidden cost of surrendering our privacy for "something free."
Anyone interested should watch the documentary "Terms and Conditions May Apply"
Comments
Reading between the lines, Zuck's outburst says to me that he is on the defensive.
I imagine that he wanted deeper ties in iOS, but Cook said no. Hence Cook's September statement. As the chickens start coming home to roost, the panic begins.
If Facebook was in alignment with its customers they would've had a dislike button by now.
Just checking to make sure that you know that when you refer to Facebook customers, you're talking about their advertisers not users.
I would much rather be a part of the former than have my info given out freely.
I really don't understand how this myth has spread so dramatically throughout the Apple fandom. Why on earth would Facebook or Google sell their users' information to advertisers? That would be like selling their secret sauce. What they are selling is limited time access to the users' eyeballs. If they sold the underlying data the advertisers would have no reason to keep coming back. Your data is the protected crown jewels. They aren't selling it. Advertisers buy access to your screen while you surf. That's it. There are plenty of companies that do sell your personal information like Acxiom or Exact Data. These are data brokers flying under the radar who sell to advertisers, insurance companies and even the government. Google and Facebook hoard your information and use it to target ads but they don't sell it or give it away.
Tim gets it.
I am not interested in managing an information economy. Social Networking needs to become an open platform like email so that if the user doesn't like the terms of one provider they are able to migrate to another that provides terms they are in alignment with. The fact that Facebook is a proprietary platform that requires you to use the service just to connect with other people that use the service is a terrible thing. Just because the swill is good enough for the uninformed masses doesn't mean the rest of us should be forced (though a lack of social network interoperability) to dine at the trough.
I would much rather be a part of the former than have my info given out freely.
I really don't understand how this myth has spread so dramatically throughout the Apple fandom. Why on earth would Facebook or Google sell their users' information to advertisers? That would be like selling their secret sauce. What they are selling is limited time access to the users' eyeballs. If they sold the underlying data the advertisers would have no reason to keep coming back. Your data is the protected crown jewels. They aren't selling it. Advertisers buy access to your screen while you surf. That's it. There are plenty of companies that do sell your personal information like Acxiom or Exact Data. These are data brokers flying under the radar who sell to advertisers, insurance companies and even the government. Google and Facebook hoard your information and use it to target ads but they don't sell it or give it away.
The problem with personalised ads is that they're so dumb. I've bought some printer ink on Amazon, so I constantly get it in my recommendations, even though I haven't bought any for years.
They're also spooky. If you look up sensitive subjects, like death, you really don't want to be bombarded with related ads.
The advertising agency seemed to thrive for some centuries before privacy started to be removed; I'm sure they can get by in the future without privacy erosion, too, even if legislation is required to enforce it.
Some decades ago, a large proportion of ads on English tv used to be tolerable or even entertaining and funny. Now, there's so much political correctness that the fun has gone all out of them.
Thank goodness for iTunes, where one can watch tv to one's heart's content without a single advertisement.
Quote:
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.
and the 33.3Billion is because investors like is monetization model, since they are paying 4X more than apple (P/E is 72 vs 18 for apple).
What is key to Zuck's argument is that Hardware will eventually commoditize ('make them cheaper' is his way of saying he'd love everyone to one an iPhone/iPad, and that Apple's profits are a barrier to entry for that platform, and he'd have more people using a better Facebook). And he's assuming that Facebook can continue to penetrate markets and expand to consume all social networks, and then... they can start charging [more] for premium services, and eventually, everything but your timeline will be 'premium.' Given Metcalf's law, the value to the consumer of Facebook goes up as more people join it, therefore it will be harder to leave it.
Hardware on the other hand, will be commodity soon. You have to make the money now, lest you lose the opportunity. In a perfect world, HW will disrupt, then attract the old SW to it, as well as new SW and functions [uber wouldn't work with a PC world], it will disrupt because of the new capabilities, and then the other HW competition will move in and try to undercut the first mover.
So, in response to Zuckerberg, one can only say, Facebook is pervasively popular because of the iPhone, and not only are there eyeballs there, but the eyeballs are ALWAYS there.
I say if Apple lowers it's HW profit say to lower the cost of the phone $100, Apple should charge FaceBook (all for profit companies) to run on it's platform, (consider it rent... they pay AWS and Akamai and all those companies to help 'deliver content' to consumers, why not the gatekeeper of the eyeball.
Say a 1 cent an hour (AWS charges 1.7). 651Million Users, Say 1/2 use Apple devices to Facebook 2 hours a day, $2.4B a year (that would pay for about $20 the profit of an iPhone/iPad). (or 4 dollars per year per FB user). Oh, and Apple STILL doesn't have to shill it's users to the highest bidder.
Snap... Facebook only MAKES 3.5B a year. I bet that P/E ratio of 72 would cut down to 20 real quick, and Zucks value would be 1/3rd of that is today.
?Amazon... loses money more often than not.
Ebay... eaking out a profit now but is at a 2.4B rate.
I guess 'app-impressions' cost model would really mess up Facebook and the internet economy in general.
All these apps would then charge for the SW, and double the app impression rate. Experience would suck.
Bottom line is, Facebook should be thankful Apple charges what it does to the end consumer, lest Apple comes after the apps that ride on the gravy train.
(~1:40) You want to take off the hoodie Mark? It is a little hot in here, talking about privacy.
Concerning this comment he made, what do we expect he's going to say? He's not going to say anything to put people off using Facebook. He has a fidouchery responsibility to his owners.
The sad thing is that people will hear his comments and nod in agreement that Apple could make their products cheaper as if that's somehow equivalent. It's not like the products could be lower than their build costs:
13" Chromebook Pixel:
http://www.amazon.com/Super-Google-Chromebook-Screen-2560x1700/dp/B00CGQ07RM
$1800
13" rMBP:
$1299
Apple has 25% net margin, same as Facebook.
Yeah, I’m... a little concerned about that logo. Because he’s not the only one with it.
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. You won't die if you don't.
If the lack of something does not adversely effect your physical, mental, or emotional health, it is not necessary. I like grapefruit juice, but it isn’t necessary. It isn’t even necessary as a source of vitamin C if other options, such as orange juice, continue to exist.
If what Zuckerberg and Facebook do is so offensive, why are there 800+ million users everyday? Never been on Facebook and never will. I am always curious as to why 10 years ago no one had Facebook and survived just fine, but now somehow we can't live without. We will tolerate any abuse and misuse for the most trivial of reasons.
A crucial fact that Facebook and Google will never admit to, is that the cost of a device such as an iPhone or Mac is utterly trivial against the amount of time one spends using/employing/depending on the device or system and therefore, the device's or system's true value. (This does not extend to the cost of getting on line, which is beyond Apple's and other's domains and is often ridiculous.) A successful, profitable Apple, is a successful, profitable and empowered me.
All the best.
If what Zuckerberg and Facebook do is so offensive, why are there 800+ million users everyday? Never been on Facebook and never will. I am always curious as to why 10 years ago no one had Facebook and survived just fine, but now somehow we can't live without. We will tolerate any abuse and misuse for the most trivial of reasons.
What abuse? a few ads down the side of the screen, OMG just saw them OMG why didn't I get annoyed before?! you know why coz they don't.....don't comment if you never saw the ads, and somehow think you have an opinion on something you never saw lol
If Facebook was in alignment with its customers they would've had a dislike button by now.
Where is Apples dislike button?
Isn't it fair for all to have or just what you want?
... He has a fidouchery responsibility to his owners...
Love it, lol.
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.
And if you pay more than the rest of the competitors you get ad free, there is a price to pay for both formats, no matter what ppl think, they are businesses after all
Or ignorance of the long-term and hidden cost of surrendering our privacy for "something free."
Anyone interested should watch the documentary "Terms and Conditions May Apply"
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terms_and_Conditions_May_Apply
IMO he is the most selfish lying person in the net business.
Disagree. That title goes to both Larry P. and Eric S. Zuckie is number 2.