Mark Zuckerberg: Tim Cook is 'Extremely Glib' (fastcompany.com) 326
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 (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Did you spill soda on your keyboard a week ago?
Have you asked Apple about your usb-c port?
Sometimes the big evil corporation will be happy to help, and may fix things even if it past its service, just so people stay happy with their products.
Apple knows its hold on us, is tentative. Now if you are abusing the equipment you may not get as much love, but if you using it normally and things are not working, they may (depending on the situation) fix it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How can you say that with any hardware vendor?
Back in the 1990's and early 2000's I did a lot of work with Sun Micosystems products. Compared to many of the other PC's and other hardware makers, their products had wonderful build quality to them, down to the smooth beveled metal blockers to close off unused expansion ports. That said, they would have a product with a defect, or a part that wore out faster then it should. Then it brought up the question, did Sun start using cheap products, and if I replace
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The lifespan of components falls on a bell curve. So far, other than the keyboard (I don't expect soda persistence), we have one data point on USB-C ports. We have no reason to assume the new USB-C ports won't last for a long time. Now, if it was a pattern repeated among a significant percentage of their customers, then you would have a point (although Apple woul
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't realize that. I wonder if they're switching suppliers or methodologies. Seems like a reasonable thing to ask.
Was the USB-C port loose, or non-responsive?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Even if they do fix it, how will they give me an assurance that they aren't simply using the same poor quality components that will fail as soon as my warranty is over? Fixing it right now is simply not enough 'caring' for me. I need to know it will be good for the life of the laptop.
See, there you go: ASSUMING that the COMPONENT QUALITY is to blame.
Apple specs the FUCK out of every single component in their products. I know, because my former boss went to work for Fairchild Semiconductor, and they were bidding on some component for one or more of Apple's products. He said he had a new-found appreciation for just how thorough their component qualification process was.
So, I am almost positive that it isn't a "poor quality components" issue. We're not talking about a Chromebook here. Appl
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Keep in mind the Hatorade Distortion Field [tumblr.com] that blows the smallest molehill into the biggest mountain if Apple is involved. Or the awesomely named Bendghazi, where Apple was able to find all of....six people with bent iPhone 6's. Samsung - the head company of "don't hold it wrong" phones, see link above - made a phone that shattered rather than bent under the same pressure and no one cared.
Re: (Score:2)
Keep in mind the Hatorade Distortion Field [tumblr.com] that blows the smallest molehill into the biggest mountain if Apple is involved.
Boy, truer words were never spoken!
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is, I could buy that if it wasn't the port that I use the most for the power cord..... or if there weren't a lot of other people on the internet complaining about the same issue.
1. Look for the Lint and get back to us.
2. They are also complaining about the same issue with the USB-C ports on their Nexus phones. Hmmm, no Apple there...
3. See #1.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
It's more likely LINT in the port. NUMEROUS people mention that being an issue with USB-C connectors in general. And the symptom is that it feels like, and acts like, a worn-out port (poor connector retention, "loose" feeling, sometimes maddeningly intermittent connections), all of which respond to a quick "toothpick" session to remove the accumulated lint.
Since all USB-C connectors are more or less designed the same, it stands to reason they will all have the same "design flaws".
And even Apple isn't going
Re: (Score:2)
Well of course you like your MacBook Air. It's the best laptop Apple has ever made.
Re: (Score:3)
"We need you to write an iphone app for us"
Ok, what laptop can I buy to develop an ios app?
Re: LOL (Score:2)
You Apple fanbois are insane. The lifetime of the laptop should be at least 5 years especially at the amount of money Apple charge.
Re: (Score:2)
2018 and you're still using 'fanboi'?
You must be new here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:LOL (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sigh, he was playing with words: "AppleCare" how much would "apple" "care" for him ...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, and that is pretty much the port that is worn out already. The thing that gets me is, I thought durability was one of the selling points of USB-C?? I plug my android phone in every day with micro-usb and it is showing no signs of wear.
That's likely what the connector salesman told Apple, HP, Microsoft. Acer, Lenovo, etc., about USB-C connectors, too.
I DO know that Apple doesn't put cheap-shit connectors in their products (because they don't HAVE to); but, since USB-C is a relatively new standard in the wild, perhaps some unanticipated wearout mechanisms in the overall USB-C connector designs are now coming to light.
If so, that wouldn't be Apple's fault, per se. It would be an industry-wide problem.
There are also common, fairly prosaic, i
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, at least with Apple that's pretty much your problem not everybody's problem like FB is. The decision to have only a single USB-C port for both devices and charging on some of those computers is one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard of. It's going to get a ton of wear and tear because it's not just peripherals that get plugged in, but the charger as well.
If it is the 15" MacBook Pro, it has FOUR identical USB-C Ports, and even if we're talking about a 13" MBP, it has TWO identical USB-C Ports. SURELY another one hasn't "worn out" yet...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Starting with the 'mag connector' it has been fairly clear to me for some time now that Apple makes their laptops to be set down on a clean desk, plugged in, and left in place most of the time. If you try to move them around, power cords come out etc and it is very annoying.
Really? Mag-Safe doesn't disconnect unless you tug on the cable, because, er, that's what it's SUPPOSED to do.
USB-C should have even a higher "retention force".
But then, you bitch about every single thing; so it hardly fucking matters.
It damn well should be Cook (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
slashdot hates fanbois and spys, not apple/Social (Score:5, Insightful)
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).
Neither? (Score:2)
There are never only two opinions on a subject. Now if you believe there are only two sides to any issue, that is brainwashing.
Re:Fuck Zuk (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Check out the wording (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
"Aligned with the truth" really stood out to me as well. If that isn't a corporate-lawyer-stamped-and-approved phrase, I don't know what is.
Not glib (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
This changes things (Score:3)
Pay more... Say what? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Zuck, like many corporate suits, cannot wrap his head around the idea that there are alternatives to the profit motive.
As such, his response is entirely focused there. It basically boils down to:
"There are only two ways that a service that facilitates massive communication world wide can exist: You either pay a subscription fee, or you pay with your eyeball time to advertisers. People have more free time than free cash, so our model makes sense. I am defending this model, because it is the most sensible
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Because he got caught doing something which is criminal in large parts of the world (and may be at least illegal in the US), of course he is trying to confuse the issue. If enough people want his blood spilled, then his status as "one of the rich" will not protect him.
Their both wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if you did know the cost of Facebook's services, you are still comparing apples and oranges. How much is your privacy worth? How do you put a price on that? Is your privacy worth more than someone else's?
Just like Farming (Score:5, Funny)
Good farmers care about their livestock, but at the end of the day still bring their animals to market.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Glib does not equal wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Well, do you mean they aren't an ad company themselves? Or do you actually think they dont advertise?
Equivelance (Score:2)
Self serving propaganda (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Dearest Mark, (Score:2)
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
Nice Strawman Zuck (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm complaining about targeted advertising. I like my ads generic, thank you very much.
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook doesn't sell your data either (although they allow it to be scraped). They, like Google, act as the middleman selling ads to their customers. In both cases, Facebook and Google, there's no third party I'm worried about, because Facebook and Google are doing the damage themselves.
Prove it. Give us the choice. (Score:5, Interesting)
...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.
Re:Prove it. Give us the choice. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Prove it. Give us the choice. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
You would be foolish to trust FB to not charge you a fee and continue selling your data.
Re: (Score:2)
...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.
Don't be naive. You would not pay them because you would not trust them.
well (Score:2)
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 ...
Oh, he cares about people? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
He's trying to "Change The World", just like every other tech company in the Valley. At least, that's what they say during their quarterly conference calls, anyway.
Oh, who to believe... (Score:2)
... 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
"Glib"? This from the man who called his users ... (Score:2)
"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".
Dear Mark (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Dear Mark,
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.
Not only that, he'd be more convincing if there was a pay model AND a free model. But there's not, so everyone is the product.
That's just damage control.
Re: (Score:2)
a pay model AND a free model.
May I direct your attention to the U.S. television industry, wherein one could receive broadcast telly or one paid money to cable companies to have channels without advertisements? Only now, one pays the cableco and sees adverts...
How well do you trust FB to maintain the split between the free and paid tiers?
Re: (Score:2)
Dear Mark,
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.
Maybe these people vote (or could be motivated to do so). Not all advertising is targeted to product purchases.
Schmucks, all of them. (Score:2)
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/softwar
Re: (Score:3)
Just like every other cloud provider. Google, Amazon and Valve don't let me migrate the things I "bought" on their system to alternate providers either. (Nor does MS, but that doesn't seem to have as big a store presence).
The same 30% that Google, Amazon, Valve and Microsoft take.
Their software updates are free, and stretch back like half a decade. Complain about expensive h
So what does this say about Apple? (Score:2)
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.)
"Glib" (Score:2)
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.
This is not... (Score:2)
Do we care that two people who don't care for us, are having a lover's quarrel?
That's not the argument (Score:2)
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.
What Zuckerberg Meant (Score:2)
It is a poor farmer who slaughters his sheep when he has no market for the meat and wool.
Linux...Donations...Volunteers? (Score:2)
Partially correct. (Score:4, Insightful)
"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.
Isn't it obvious? (Score:3)
Zuckerberg cares about YOU, not the money--that's why he's a multi-billionaire!
Re: (Score:2)
Or, Apple respects that some of their customers like being Facebook's product, and they'll reach out to their customers whereever they are.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
"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.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a bad thing, but it's not an invasion of privacy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.