Once again - you are semantically incorrect. You are asserting that somehow, Google is selling personal (PII) data. They are not. The FUD needs to stop. You can talk about targeting all you want, but don't make it sound like Google is selling YOUR data.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Mark Zuckerberg Rebuts Tim Cook: Companies That Charge You More Don't Necessarily Care About You More
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Once again - you are semantically incorrect. You are asserting that somehow, Google is selling personal (PII) data. They are not. The FUD needs to stop. You can talk about targeting all you want, but don't make it sound like Google is selling YOUR data.
It would be convenient if Apple only starting talking about privacy AFTER the Cambridge Analytica thing. Since they’ve been talking about it for years, I don’t think it’s convenient at all. I think Apple knew the day was coming when user data would either leak in a massive breach or get used for something nefarious. It was a good bet to make.
Because it is the only way to do business without compromising the company. Apple knew this decades ago.
Zuck needs to S.T.F.U. and figure out how to drain his toxic cesspool of incalculable social harm.
Apple seems to get a "free" pass because they haven't been as successful. The irony.
I rather pay for a service and don't have spying ads all over the place tracking me or collecting data so I can have the software for free. there is no excuse no one is forcing you to give "free" services, the only reason why you give the service for "free" is to make money, yes you don't charge the user but there are other ways to make money and anyway you will still make money some how, people spent money in the games you have in your facebook page, I'm sure you also get a commission from that, I don't like none of them but some reason I like the facebook guy much less. I don't use facebook or any other media collecting agency, twitter etc, if you guys like it and don't care about privacy, no problem, but for me, I don't exist, I'm not even here, bye
Neither have 'valid' points. Both are just both are just big ol' nasty cats peeing
on each other to mark territory.
at least apple make money off you but by selling you an item or selling you an app, but the facebook guy make money off you behind your back selling your data to 3rd party companies, including personal info and what you search for etc, just like google. I rather use duckduckgo
Funny how someone (Zuckerberg) and a company (Facebook) that’s so despised becomes elevated when compared to Apple. Such is the disdain for Apple by so many posters on MR that people stick up more for any other company on the planet whenever the two are compared.
So basically, they are both saying that no one gets a free lunch. The only difference is that Facebook didn't go out of their way (at ALL) explaining why the service was "free," whereas Apple has always been pretty clear that they provide various things for those premium prices, with data privacy WAY up at the top of the list of differentiators.
Luckily people don't ask me anymore why I don't (and never had) a Facebook account.
Siri would be a lot better if Apple mined data like Facebook, Amazon or Google do. Think about that for a moment. Siri’s not the greatest, and is actively being held back because Apple values privacy, because Apple customers value privacy.
On the other hand, Android is so open that Facebook the app manages to steal people’s call history. Not even their Facebook call history, just the regular day to day call logs from the phone without ever explicitly allowing such access.
Everyone has different reasons for choosing Apple or whatever else. Privacy is clearly one point in Apple’s favor. Call that a marketing tactic if you want, claim Tim Cook is only doing it because it helps Apple make more money, the end result is that your personal data is safer with Apple.
On the other hand, Android is so open that Facebook the app manages to steal people’s call history. Not even their Facebook call history, just the regular day to day call logs from the phone without ever explicitly allowing such access.
Everyone has different reasons for choosing Apple or whatever else. Privacy is clearly one point in Apple’s favor. Call that a marketing tactic if you want, claim Tim Cook is only doing it because it helps Apple make more money, the end result is that your personal data is safer with Apple.
I don’t disagree! Of course these large companies are profit driven. But I think it is possible for that to be the case and also that the manner in which Apple makes its money leaves open far fewer doors to consumer exploitation than Facebook’s.
I don't condone Facebook. But the reality of the call logs was because of Messenger and how it integrates with SMS and the phone app. So yeah - Android has different permissions. But it was an opt in/opt out scenario.
The problem with privacy policies no matter the platform is that they are in legalese and no one reads them. Nor EULAs....
Apple and Facebook sell two different things. Tim's original point of about not being in this position is valid, but not a good comparison because Apple isn't in the information acquisition business (as much) as Facebook is. Of course he'd not be in this position unless Tim Cook was suddenly CEO of Facebook, he would be in that position. It's a dumb argument of Cook to make IMO. Instead, he could have said Facebook should take user privacy extremely important like we do at Apple. And call it a day.
Both companies only care about the consumer because the consumer has the ability to make their businesses successful. They have very different approaches when it comes to how they get the customers' business initially and how they keep the customer engaged (i.e. making the business money); but when all is said and done, the bottom line on the balance sheet is what drives both Cook and Zuckerberg to make most of the decisions they make, I think.
Try actually reading my post mr 'false narrative'.
Advertisers want to convince people to buy their product. Ergo, serving ads to people that can't afford anything is a waste of their ad budget. So claiming advertising is a viable model for such people is BS.
Try actually reading my post mr 'false narrative'.
Advertisers want to convince people to buy their product. Ergo, serving ads to people that can't afford anything is a waste of their ad budget. So claiming advertising is a viable model for such people is BS.
It's called critical mass. The more people on FB's service, the better. Whether they can afford things are not. Ask many people why they are on facebook - the answer is often - because everyone else is. The false narrative is using Z's comment to mean that he's referring to those that can't afford it to targets for advertising.
Also - you can afford household items and not an iPhone, iPad or iMac.
This is false. You been around long enough to know this is false. iAds failed primarily because Apple overcharged for the service and very few companies used it. The advertisement for iAds even bragged about how much data Apple had on customers.
This is also false. Siri's responses to personalized requests are primarily affected by Apple's policies. General information requests don't need personal information and general information is one of Siri's weaknesses. Apple's privacy policy can't be used as a crutch since Apple does indeed collect a crap ton of information on customers.
3 for 3 on falsehoods. They don't give away data. I suspect you're going to try to jigger facts to parse out a different meaning of Google data. Please don't do that. You know everyone is referencing specific customer data. You also know that Google hasn't/isn't/won't give you specific customer data.
Last edited:
If you want to be fair. They do not SELL your data. They add you to a data pool (categories, interests and such) from where advertisers can pick and decide who they want to target.
He could build his service while not participating in some of the shady business doings that they are. He chooses not to.