Slashdot Mirror
Mark Zuckerberg: Tim Cook is 'Extremely Glib' (fastcompany.com)
A week after Apple CEO Cook said "some well-crafted regulation is necessary " in light of the Facebook-Cambridge Analytica scandal and that Apple was better off than Facebook because it doesn't sell user data to advertisers, Facebook's CEO has struck back. In an interview published on Monday, he said: "You know, I find that argument, that if you're not paying that somehow we can't care about you, to be extremely glib. And not at all aligned with the truth. The reality here is that if you want to build a service that helps connect everyone in the world, then there are a lot of people who can't afford to pay. And therefore, as with a lot of media, having an advertising-supported model is the only rational model that can support building this service to reach people . . . I don't at all think that means that we don't care about people. To the contrary, I think it's important that we don't all get Stockholm syndrome, and 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."
My less than one year old macbook pro has usb-c ports that are wearing out and a keyboard that sounds like I spilled soda all over it a week ago. I'll get back to you when I find out how much Apple 'cares' about me.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Sorry I don’t understand his point. This has nothing to do with the absolute value of the direct payments made by the customer. This is about selling their data. Zuckerberg is trying to confuse the issues, and I find it really problematic.
Facebook's business model is selling your information to advertisers and giving you some services. The problem is we do not know what and how much is sold, so we as individuals do not know the actual cost of Facebook's services, so we cannot make informed decisions if we are getting a deal or not.
Apples business model is to build products and sell them. They tend to sell their products at a premium, and refuse to get into a race to the bottom with their competitors. Apple has a history of being very insidious in the industry by pushing technology that we may not need or even want and make it common place, and more or less forcing people into paying for premium product in cases where they cannot afford it and will need to suffer, or go without and be at a disadvantage.
Now that being said, you have a way out of Apples services. You do not need Apples products you can go with other companies products which some are just as good if not better. While there are some Apple only protocols they normally have a good enough open protocol so if you are out the ecosystem you are not completely left out.
Facebook services is based on the idea that it has nearly all the people on it. So while they are competitors to Facebook, you are left at a disadvantage to the others. But is the disadvantage worth it... We do not know.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
You know, I find that argument, that if you're not paying that somehow we can't care about you, to be extremely glib.
He can find it glib all he wants but that doesn't make it wrong.
The reality here is that if you want to build a service that helps connect everyone in the world, then there are a lot of people who can't afford to pay.
And there are obviously many more who can. Delivering a service under false or misleading pretenses is something I find reprehensible. Facebook isn't an honest broker of data about people and they have a long history of treating their users in a manner that could reasonably be described as contemptuous.
And therefore, as with a lot of media, having an advertising-supported model is the only rational model that can support building this service to reach people
Which is demonstrably nonsense. It's one way to reach a lot of people but it is not even close to the only way. Apple sells tens of millions of devices each year so obviously they are reaching a very large audience and aren't relying on advertising to do it. Amazon gets only a tiny fraction of their revenue from advertising - they actually sell the stuff people want. Advertising is fine and useful but to pretend that it is the only way to reach a large audience is just ridiculous.
At least in your case...
1) 1-year AppleCare comes standard, so you can take your MBP to the nearest store (or ship it back) and demand a fix or a new one depending on what broke (esp. if the USB-C ports are worn-out.)
2) I don't think Cook claimed to 'care' (could be wrong), it was Zuck who claims to care (which is technically true - he cares greatly that all the data you feed his site be accurate and correct.)
Meanwhile, with FB, your shit's already sold-off to every spammer and his dog, so there's bugger-all you can do about it once you feed it your data and/or use it.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
The problem, Mr. Zuckerberg, isn't that you want to connect everyone in the world. It's that you want to connect everyone in the world whether they want to be connected or not.
Facebook is the real world human centipede, and Zuckerberg is the made doctor who wants to create it.
He's just trying to connect everyone in the world out of the goodness of his heart, is he? His motives are purely altruistic, right?
So why isn't facebook a non-profit then?
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Cook should win in a landslide.
Apple - for all their problems with "walled gardens" and even the fact they do mine your privacy - has revenue streams where you aren't the product.
Zuck has NOTHING other than squeezing every last bit of privacy out of you until you're dead. And then he'll violate your corpse.
Look at it this way:
Apple is a corrupt construction company.
Facebook is a fucking meth dealer.
Unfortunately, I doubt they would consider providing that as an option. Their data-mining is only as valuable as it is because they have cast such a broad net. If people were able to opt out then the data they mined wouldn't be as valuable. I don't even know if they COULD stop mining the data. Remember that this is the company that has convinced everyone on the internet to hide one of their widgets on their page, silently collecting data on users that aren't even signed up with Facebook.
When you say things like:
Without realizing that advertisers won't pay to advertise to people with no money it sort of makes you sound like an idiot.
Perhaps we could consider that everyone being "overly connected" is one of the problems we have today in the first place....?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I think you got a lemon port somehow. This is not typical and expecting your replacement to be junk is superstition on your end. The ports are by no means cheap in quality or cost. Get it replaced and stop making your personal laptop experience that is a fluke or fabrication part of this. Back to Facebook and CEO's going at each other.
Wha...hold on there cowboy!! Apple (Tim Cook) has NOT been involved in the current scandal of violating customer privacy. You must be confused. It's really Google and Facebook whom are to blame. The only thing Apple is guilty of is charging obscene amounts for what otherwise is stock-standard Intel hardware for the Macbooks and shitty-ass Beats. But again, when it comes to privacy, Tim seems to be the lone crusader against Google, Facebook, CIA, and FBI.
Life is not for the lazy.
"I find that argument, that if you're not paying that somehow we can't care about you, to be extremely glib"
It's not that you can't, Zuck, it's that you DON'T.
There's no dichotomy here. Slashdot doesn't hate apple but rather the arrogance of the fanboi. Only a few simpletons persist in arguing that apple products are great products in and of themselves. Likewise, Slashdotters are of a ilk that uses social media but also has a deeper appreciation of the insidious privacy invasion at work.
Thus Apples stance is admirable even to haters. What might taint it is that Apple isn't pure as the driven snow either, despite fanboi exaggeration.
But it should be recognized that "if you aren't paying for the product, you are the product". Sure you get facebook for "free". But it's not free is it? Apple hardware's baseline cost is higher than other brand's entry level prices. But they don't make (as much) money on the backend of your personal data, they do have a phenomenal security record even including lapses, and moreover they rarely make rush-to-market mistakes that lead people to ignore security up front in getting the product out the door. THey have a very wholistic view, and remarkable a corporate philosopy of excellence not just dominance, so they view their moves with that lens.
With younger generations the sell out of privacy isn't considered as negative as it is to older generations. Part of that is custom but a lot of it wisdom. Tattoos and vaping seem cool too when you are young too. Like those it remains to be seen if either foregoing private data control or heavy vaping will be a transient phenomena or new normal. I'd bet there's a backlash on both eventually, along with a tinge of regret. But really who knows. Maybe private data isn't going to be important. Maybe coating my lungs with PEG and VOCs won't give me palsy and emphysema when I'm 60.
Personally, apple and linux are my preferred tools. I use apple as a persistent platform that I can reliable count on across decades to be nearly trouble free hardware, exquisitely maintained firmware, and very very few surprises in the operating system. Since my time has value, the cost of apple's ecosystem is a actually a huge savings of both time and money. On the otherhand when I need raw computation/$$ I buy linux machines, use them then salvage them. Trying to maintain a cheap linux machine over time isn't worth the cost in effort or risks in patching a cobweb of bolted together libraries. I periodically just nuke all my installed packages and rebuilt for my current projects. I find that any given package manager system only has a lifetime of few years before there's something better to learn anew for what ever distro is right for the job (currently I'm in love with anaconda and Linux mint).
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.