Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
66,571
35,836



Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has countered the argument that companies without an ad-supported business model are better off.

tim-cook-mark-zuckerberg.jpg

"You know, I find that argument, that if you're not paying that somehow we can't care about you, to be extremely glib," said Zuckerberg, in an interview with Vox's Ezra Klein. "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."

Last week, Apple CEO Tim Cook told Recode's Kara Swisher and MSNBC's Chris Hayes that his company "could make a ton of money if we monetized our customer," but added "we've elected not to do that."

Apple's business model is primarily focused on selling products like iPhones and iPads to customers, rather than targeting users with advertisements based on their personal information. Facebook, on the other hand, is a free service that relies on ads for a significant portion of its revenue.

Cook, who said Apple views privacy as a "human right," believes that Facebook shouldn't have the ability to collect as much information as it does.

"The ability of anyone to know what you've been browsing about for years, who your contacts are, who their contacts are, things you like and dislike and every intimate detail of your life -- from my own point of view it shouldn't exist," said Cook, speaking at the annual China Development Forum last week.

Zuckerberg argued that while Facebook is "squarely in the camp of the companies that work hard to charge you less and provide a free service that everyone can use," it doesn't mean the company doesn't care about people.

"I don't think at all that 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."

Zuckerberg's comments follow last month's revelation that data firm Cambridge Analytica used personal information harvested from more than 50 million Facebook profiles without permission to build a system that could target U.S. voters with personalized political ads based on their psychological profile.

Cook said the situation "is so dire and has become so large that probably some well-crafted regulation is necessary." He also made the mic-drop comment that he "wouldn't be in this situation" if he were Zuckerberg.

The entire question and answer is embedded below.

Click here to read rest of article...

Article Link: Mark Zuckerberg Rebuts Tim Cook: Companies That Charge You More Don't Necessarily Care About You More
 
  • Like
Reactions: 341328
they're both right really, it is the consumers duty to know what they are signing up for. If you thought facebook wasn't monitizing on your information you must have been under a rock, and if you didnt know that apple has a premium price that comes with a layer of protection then you're wilfully ignorant.
 
One of the reasons they charge more because they don't sell your data to make up the difference. Take Amazon, they often sell hardware at cost or at a lost because they know they can make it up selling you other stuff by using the data they collect.
 
Its not black and white. Each of them have valid points, in their little cute bitch fight!

Neither Facebook or Apple are angels.

Each company exists for one reason - to get as much money from their customers are possible. Both companies have different ways to achieve this.
 
I have no love for Zuckerberg but this whole privacy angle is quite convenient for Apple. The company’s business model revolves around selling high margin hardware for a profit. That business model existed long before privacy was such a huge deal.
 
One of the reasons they charge more because they don't sell your data to make up the difference. Take Amazon, they often sell hardware at cost or at a lost because they know they can make it up selling you other stuff by using the data they collect.

No - that's not accurate. They charge more because they are a product company. Services yes, but compared to FB, they have way more SKUs - don't they?

Apple has iAds, they brokered a deal with Google where google pays to be their search engine of choice. Don't kid yourself thinking Apple is much different. They just aren't as successful (they wish they were) with iAds.

If you look at Apple, Google, Amazon, Facebook - their privacy policies are very similar when it comes to data.
 
Maybe Mark should go into politics. Because that was one fine bit of political spin. The problem is not that they are advertiser supported. MacRumors is advertiser supported. The problem is what as Tim Cook put it so well,they have monetized their customers. Advertiser supported sites would have no reason to collect the phone number of everyone you call or text or that call you. They don't have reason to turn on the camera, or the microphone on your phone and spy on you. They don't have reason to collect all of this data and then to link it together with analytics that is so sophisticated, it can identify you in a picture even if your face is not visible. They don't have reason to sell all of this data to who ever has the money to buy it. It's not that it is advertiser supported. Because that is not what Facebook is.
 
What's funny is that user data is, for the most part, useless. People in the industry want to make it sound like user data is inherently valuable. It isn't. Most of it isn't really actionable.

The cambridge analytica thing is another example of the hype. What are really the goals of a political campaign? There are only two:
  • get out the vote for your candidate
  • suppress the vote for the other candidate
Now really, you can post stuff to rile people up and get them to the polls, or you can discourage them from getting out. That's about it. You don't need a lot of data to do that. If you listen to the hucksters they'll promise the moon and starts. But really, it's BS.

If you believe the Democrats the Russians did that with a few contractors and a couple of hundred thousand dollars.

But really, there are other, better channels than Facebook for grass-roots like stuff. Most of the activists want to be manipulated, which makes things easier.
 
"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 spy on people."

Fix it for you Zuckerberg...
 
No - that's not accurate. They charge more because they are a product company. Services yes, but compared to FB, they have way more SKUs - don't they?

Apple has iAds, they brokered a deal with Google where google pays to be their search engine of choice. Don't kid yourself thinking Apple is much different. They just aren't as successful (they wish they were) with iAds.

If you look at Apple, Google, Amazon, Facebook - their privacy policies are very similar when it comes to data.
Apple still has iAds? I thought they got out of that business?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Websnapx2
"Don't Necessarily" is the key point here.

But there is a strong correlation......

Facebook cares about:

1. Their bottom line
2. Their bottom line
3. Advertisers
4. That the user use their site
.
.
.
122324345. The user

Companies as Apple can at least cut no.3, wether the user is above or below 122324345th is another question.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.