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.
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.
...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.
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.
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.