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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
"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.
Zuckerberg cares about YOU, not the money--that's why he's a multi-billionaire!
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.
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.