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."
LOL - who is /. going to pick in this fight - they hate them both but have to pick a side.
"I have developed a keen sense of human 'caring' and am able to reproduce this chemical response from my human thought-gland with near 35% accuracy. if required, I may also express a limited concoction of saline liquid from my entirely human eyeball which is in no way casually impeded by my nictating membrane." --Mark Zuckerberg, addressing a McDonalds cashier trying to dissuade Mark from pocketing a McFlurry.
Good people go to bed earlier.
More like glibc.
Now I trust Facebook. Completely altruistic...
In the immortal words of Socrates, who said; 'I drank what?'
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.
Good farmers care about their livestock, but at the end of the day still bring their animals to market.
This is about the breach of the trust of an entire country's populace in a grievous way.
You'd have to have a room temperature IQ (ha! units don't matter) to not see what was and is happening. There was never any trust. The EULA explicitly stated exactly what Facebook would do. People willingly gave up this information to the ether. The fact people would think they still have any control is absolutely laughable.
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.
Because "an advertising supported model" = hoovering up all of your Facebook data (sex race religion political preference, education job etc), all of the web pages with imbedded like buttons you visit, not only your contact list but all your phone calls and times and messages, all your friends data, data from people not even on the service but mined and tagged into thier database, and more - then selling it to the highest bidder, second highest bidder, heck we let anyone scrape what they want using our interface and we don't do anything about it because $$$.
they would have removed their Facebook page. But apparently apple likes being Facebooks product.
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.
The issue isn't an advertising model. Virtually everyone with a Facebook account understands that. The issue at hand is the incredibly pervasive data harvesting even for users who don't have accounts, lack of transparency to users, and then selling it to the highest bidder. If you do not understand that this is the problem at hand, then kindly take your billions and let someone else handle running your company - or at least your PR department.
Warm regards,
Voyager529
but nobody's complaining about your targeted advertising. What we _are_ complaining about is your practice of selling questionable data to equally questionable third parties.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
...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 can afford to pay. I doubt that FB make more than $10/year by selling me out, and would easily pay $10/year for the utility of FB if they excluded me from all sell-out activity.
Just tell us the price and give us the option.
Narrowly, on this one point, he's not wrong.
Broadcast networks didn't care less about viewers just because they were paid by the advertisers and not the viewers, for example.
Nor do I think my cable company cares deeply for me just because they charge me a lot for Internet access ...
That selling user data is how facebook makes their bread and butter. They're in it for the profit, not some altruistic sentiment about connecting people. The corporation acts in its own enlightened self interest, not yours. There is no incentive to protect your data.
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!
Check out the wording in the supposed "interview".
Who uses the phrase "aligned with the truth" in conversation? Or "glib" in the meaning of insincere and shallow... in conversation?
That quote looks less like an interview response, and more like a carefully crafted press release.
Other phrases and uncommon construction abound, such as "I don't at all think...", I could expect that in written text that was edited and corrected, but not casually said. "And therefore, as with a lot of media..." is also weird.
Does he really talk like that?
... 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."
The problem with this argument is that it represents a certain degree of hypocrisy; Zuckerberg is implying that services which take your money are only in it to get more of your money. But as the ads on Facebook become more pervasive, it's very clear that Facebook is likewise interested in the same progression... they're just getting there by a different path, that's all. Further, The Zuck is trying to throw out a red herring to sidestep the entire conversation about privacy, and about the collection, sale and leaks of user data, both public and private.
On the other hand, it's clearly in Cook's best interest to "kick 'em while they're down," as Apple has attempted more than once to make their own forays into social media, because they're highly interested in all of that juicy (and profitable) user data, as well... but they -- and likewise Google -- have been somewhat stymied by the competitive and highly entrenched offerings available from Facebook.
So really, who do we put more of our trust in? The mega-company which sells us cool toys at huge markups, and attempts to collect tons of data through those toys about our music/movie/television/gaming/reading/etc habits, in order to attempt to market more digital stuff to us that we'll probably like? Or the mega-company which attempts to connect us online to every single person, place, company or activity that we've ever had any contact with in our life, and which aggregates all of that into tons of data, in order to sell it en-mass to other mega-companies... so that they can attempt to market stuff to us that we'll probably like?
I'm not even kidding... that's actually a tough call.
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.
"Dumb fucks", when asked in an interview why people gave FB so much information voluntarily?*
Pot, meet kettle.
*Zuck has since said he really didn't mean it. Honestly. Probably meant to say "Stupid c&nts".
DaveyJJ
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.........
Zuckerberg uses our data to incessantly nag us into buying things we probably shouldn't, or straight up gives away / sells our data without telling us to who, for how much, or for what use. Users have no good way of getting this data back or having it deleted.
Cook uses cheap poor foreign laborers to manufacture Apple phones and other tech, locks people into Apple tech, uses IP protections to control competition, takes a massive cut of all software sales, charges ridiculous prices for minor hardware/software upgrades, forces people into upgrading using battery throttling that he doesn't tell customers about, and stashes hundreds of billions in tax havens. In other words, Apple uses the work of poor people and every shady business practice he can muster to create a massive transference of wealth upwards from the many customers to the few shareholders / executives / high level developers.
Both companies are awful.
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.
Fuck you Mark
iCloud is optional. And their ability to push specialized single-device build would show up as a new OS version, and I have to approve each update. Now, I could easily be fooled by Apple, cause how would I know? But at some point I have to trust someone, even if that someone is the signers of my Linux distro.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
There are never only two opinions on a subject. Now if you believe there are only two sides to any issue, that is brainwashing.
Twinstiq, game news
No, they also charge for the OS and the interconnection of the parts and the OS. I'd rather that than have to pay for windows, or spend time monkeying around with Linux.
Does that statement actually reflect Apple's position then: they don't care about you if you're not paying? Might explain iTunes (which anyone can get for free.)
Merely calling an argument "glib" basically means "your response was concise yet devastating, and I am unhappy about it." An actual glib response should be answered by addressing the oversimplification.
Marky Zuck then goes on to call "fake news" on the fact that Facebook's users are its product. They're an advertising platform, they sell their users' viewing time to advertisers, this isn't a secret.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
"Apple (Tim Cook) has NOT been involved in the current scandal of violating customer privacy."
I'd quite say he is violating my privacy to some degree when Apple restricts me from accessing 18+ chat rooms on a program where I explicitly paid for such a feature. You don't get to tell me where to go or whom I may associate with, Cook.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Uh, except if you buy an Apple product you are their customer by definition. As opposed to Facebook or Google, where you are by definition the product.
I honestly sat for 10 seconds trying to figure out why he cared about Gnome or GLib. That capitalization really broke me. https://developer.gnome.org/gl...
Being an asshole, both of them, is not mutually exclusive.
Do we care that two people who don't care for us, are having a lover's quarrel?
That's a bad thing, but it's not an invasion of privacy.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Uh, except if you buy an Apple product you are their customer by definition. As opposed to Facebook or Google, where you are by definition the product.
Stockholders.
The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
that argument, that if you're not paying that somehow we can't care about you,
No no no Zucky boy, that's not the argument. We know you most assuredly care about us... but only to the extent that we are the product. Don't pretend you don't know the quote. Reframing the issue like you tried to do isn't going to earn you any points here. You care about users, but you care a LOT more about customers.
What you do is connect people.... to advertisers.
It is a poor farmer who slaughters his sheep when he has no market for the meat and wool.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
...So, they're both wrong.
"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.
Lone crusader? Um, there are open projects trying to do social networking and file sharing in a non-lock-in non-privacy-invasive way. I've been through trying to convince an Apple product that I don't want to use iCloud, it was a pain and I think finally stopped being possible. And last I checked that data is not user-side encrypted. There is a "right" way to do data services.
Whereas, Zuckerberg needs help, that kid is just not well.
He will say whatever he thinks he needs to say to justify his being a multibillionaire.
"Aligned with the truth" means I lie, but I think I am clever enough that it won't seem like a lie.
Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
You don't get to tell me where to go or whom I may associate with, Cook.
Yes he does. We don't have modern laws that restrict movement on the Internet. Also, the rules that a regulatory agency was charged with decided to not do the thing they were charged with. So since everyone in DC has expressed an unwillingness to impose any kind of "rule of law" on the Internet, it's basically whatever/whenever and you'll like it till then.
Zuckerberg cares about YOU, not the money--that's why he's a multi-billionaire!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Well, do you mean they aren't an ad company themselves? Or do you actually think they dont advertise?
You really can't figure this out? Look at the financial statements. Apple does not make a significant percentage of their revenue from advertisements. Advertising to them is a cost center, not a source of significant profit. Compare to Google and Facebook which make virtually all of their revenue by selling advertising space. Facebook doesn't make money advertising Facebook - they make money selling ad space to other companies.
This reminds me of those that have to make arguments (being generous here) against Trump even if completely unrelated in any way.
Yes you should complain if you want to - but do it when it is relevant. This is about privacy and selling of personal information not about transparency and honest behavior.
IMO.
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.
their customer by definition
Cattle, more so, I think.
Certainly some of them are customers. But many approach purchase of Apple products like they do their politics- it's a cult/sports team.
Neither Apple nor Facebook has treated its customers or others well in the past.
Look, this is total nonsense. Firstly, and importantly, Facebook's customers are not its users, they are its advertisers, and Facebook probably treats them pretty well. Facebook's users are its raw materials, which is treats appallingly, which is presumably what you meant, and nobody could possibly disagree with you. From those 'experiments' they ran wherein they tailored people's newsfeeds to determine whether or not bad news made you feel bad (Spoiler Alert: it does), to the way in which they play fast & loose with your private data, they are basically a pretty evil company.
But people choose to use it. I use it. I keep in touch with people, and with what's going on in my local community, and the plain fact is that there's no competitor for this. They may be in the future, and hopefully (doubtful, though!) it'll be something open, and collective, and not driven by advertising, and maybe we'll just have to suck it up and pay for it.
Now, explain to me how Apple has treated its customers in an even remotely comparable way. Apple make computers, and an operating system, and sell it to people. They also sell music, and telephones. They don't sell the cheapest computers, but they are nowhere near as expensive as people make out, and come with software that's far superior to anything else (Ok, that might be a matter of opinion...), and offer free OS upgrades for longer than any other company (Ok, other than "Linux", but that doesn't run Photoshop, so it's out).
One day, I might need to switch back from Apple devices, but the 2012 macbook pro I'm typing this on looks almost brand new. How am I being treated badly by Apple again?
One of those unsubstantiated 'problems' with Apple products, and one that sounds very much like a bug in some dodgy app you bought, and is highly unlikely to be anything to do with Apple at all.
Also, it has precisely, exactly, zero to do with privacy. Freedom, sure. But privacy, nope.
Knowing who would pay would be extremely valuable to FB.... The incentives would not be good.
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro" -- HST
Apple's customers are also its users. Facebook's customers are their advertisers.
Notice how he avoids making that explicit?
Zuck's the one being glib.
If it's all about a "cult" built on advertising to sell mediocre stuff to rubes, why is it that another company with better products didn't get their own advertising campaign, and put Apple out of business by the end of the Carter Administration?
There is a set of people who do have completely irrational feelings towards Apple, Inc....but they don't buy Apple products.
I didn't say their product was mediocre... or that it was some sort of conspiracy. They take their Gucci machines very seriously, as do those who swear art just doesn't look as pretty or sound as good on anything else. There is a cult of personality surrounding Apple. Are you really trying to deny that? You need not defend their products to me- I own several
I consider part of my privacy as my freedom to go where I please without Apple going "Oh, look, we see you're trying to access an 18+ section of an app, you can't do that."
None of their business where I'm going or what I'm doing, especially when I have a paid contract with the third entity in question for such service to be provided.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
"One of those unsubstantiated 'problems' with Apple products"
Uh, no, very fucking well documented for years directly in Apple's own App Store guidelines.
Meanwhile, the Android version? Straight to 18+ video chat rooms without fail, from the very first Droid version of the app.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
I explicitly paid for such a feature.
Then this is the part I fail to understand. You can't have paid the App Store, because they won't sell such a thing, according to you, so you must have purchased access through some other means, and must also have downloaded some app to access whatever-it-is you're looking for. If it's a 18+ "chat app", it must be accessing online content of an 18+ nature, which isn't restricted by the App Store, otherwise it would be hard to download a browser.
Anyway, no details were given, which I guess is fair enough, but it does make it difficult to really understand exactly what your situation is.
Apple has been caught tracking the GPS coordinates of iPhones, tracking every cell tower they see, every wifi SSID they encounter, every address of nearby Bluetooth devices.
From which they don't track your location - they even randomise your Wifi MAC address so that others can't track you either. They do turn this data into a database of SSID vs. location, which my iPod touch (which has no GPS) is able to determine its location with astonishing accuracy.
Why does everyone want to hate Apple so much, when there are companies that actually are tracking you, and selling this data to the highest bidder, while all Apple are doing is trying to make nice consumer electronics that people want to buy? It doesn't make sense to me.
Yep, just not the one you think. I call it the Hatorade Distortion Field.
Lol, ya... ok You drink too much Kool-aid to objectively judge Apple, I think. That's ok. Their business model needs people like you so that people like me can continue to occasionally buy their products
If you told Birthers that you thought Obama was born in Hawaii, not Kenya, did that mean you supported all his bank bailouts and drone strikes? Basic logic fail. I have a functioning BS detector and it goes off no matter the source or the target. You also skipped the issue of it's all about cults, why is it that a company with better prices and/or products hasn't made their own cult and driven Apple out of business.
Does this place have a website? You can get "adult" content on Mobile Safari. I've checked.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
You don't have a functioning BS detector. If you did, you wouldn't submit as evidence for your argument someone attempting to make a fallacious comparison between a phone that has the antenna attenuated by touching it *anywhere* on the metal ring around its edge (why the fix was merely a rubber bumper) and phones that suffer issues if you completely occlude the internal antenna.
You *are* the bullshit, you just can't see it. You'll leap at any argument in defense of them, without running it through the smell test in your brain. That's a cult. And you're a part of it. Sorry, chap.
He didn't say that FB cares about people, he just said that the level of "care" a provider shows its users, is not at all connected to whether or not the provider charges users directly.
The only "care" the user or the provider need to show is that which is spelled out in the ToS.
Beyond that, Apple cares that people keep buying, and FB cares that people keep connecting. How is this a problem?
http://www.newser.com/story/25...
Says the person engaging in willful dumbfuckery. Literally dozens of phones come with "don't hold it wrong" advisories but there's only one company that ever got shit over it. The hatorade has made you stupid, and that's just a fact you're going to have to deal with.
Yes, but none of those phones consider "touching it anywhere on the metal ring around it" holding it wrong. You're a fucking toolshed. I've owned every iPhone made up to the 6s (still using it)
The attenuation on the metal ring was a whoops. Trying to defend it... is fucking stupid. Here's your sign.
Except it wasn't the entire edge of the phone. It was the part with the antenna:
You know, like every other phone on that link that advises you not to hold the phone around the antenna. This is why you need to get out of the Apple Hatorade Distortion Field, it emptied out your brains and replaced them with excrement. Now, why don't you whine for a while about Apple's "walled garden" before firing up your console to play some manufacturer-approved game like Call of Duty. Or bitch about how the iPhone Plus bends at the same pressure where you Galaxy cracks. Or moan about how Apple doesn't have a replaceable battery before checking Facebook on your Moto Z, which doesn't have one either and also ditched the headphone jack before the iPhone 7 was released.
Because that's the kind of dumb hateboi bitch you are.
https://www.anandtech.com/show...
The outside ridge of the iPhone4 is an external antenna. If you hold it in any way that bridges the 2 antennas (see: any way at all, *almost*) the attenuation is measurably terrible. Again, this is why the fix was just a rubber coating around the antenna.
Stop making yourself look like a fucking idiot. It's starting to become embarrassing.
http://fscked.co.uk/post/75103...
Would you like me to keep going, or you wanna pull Jobs' cock out of your mouth long enough to breathe?
https://gigaom.com/2010/07/17/...
Keep on spinning, amigo.
Why am I not whining about Apple's walled garden? because I don't care about it. In the case of the iPhone 4, it had a design flaw. A flaw easily fixed by a bumper (which I had, and eventually preferred)
You're the fuckstick here trying to pretend like it was a non-issue or an issue that existed in other phones, conflating it simple hand-covering of the antenna.
There's a reason they gave those bumpers out for free.
What's pathetic is the whole "you're holding it wrong" or "we changed how we calculate the signal bars" as a fix. Pure hubris. Hand in your geek card for swallowing that load without blinking.