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
Companies with a business model where advertisers pay the bills care about you as much as politicians who take large donations from special interest. You’re a product to them. Means to an end.
Money and, more importantly, where that money is coming from is where loyalties lie. You’d have to be a fool to believe otherwise.
Money and, more importantly, where that money is coming from is where loyalties lie. You’d have to be a fool to believe otherwise.
That was one of those moments were a "No comment" from Zuckenberg would have been perfect.
Because with all the stuff that has recently surfaced there is no way they can get out of any argument on the winning side.
Because with all the stuff that has recently surfaced there is no way they can get out of any argument on the winning side.
Right but the point is Apple’s business model existed before Tim Cook became the king of privacy. Of course when your business model doesn’t require free services paid for by ads to work you can get on your high horse about privacy.
I read your post. It's still wrong. You took a statement Zuck made about users and re-purposed it as if it applied to advertisers. It didn't. Even if it did, the logic behind it lacks, well... logic.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.
Not being able to pay for a service does not equal not being able to buy other products. There's no correlation there. None. Advertisers advertise up and down the spectrum of product pricing. Everything they advertise isn't expensive so to say they're wasting their time makes no sense. They could be advertising anything from laundry detergent to vacations to Himalayas.
“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.”
They do though. The company that will “charge you more” gives you a package more than just a phone when selling it as their main product. You get a highly functioning smartphone full of the latest tech inside, fast secure updates, Apple Stores around the world that offer support, oh and get this: an OS with services like iCloud that does not spy on you, track you (unless you want it to), or sell any of your info.
Free services like yours Zuckerberg do not care about any of that, because they are just that: free. Except the selling the users info part which is quite the biggie for many of us. I don’t mind paying more for a secure device in my pocket that can do A, B, C, and D. I do mind using a ‘free’ service that only does E although without the privacy.
They do though. The company that will “charge you more” gives you a package more than just a phone when selling it as their main product. You get a highly functioning smartphone full of the latest tech inside, fast secure updates, Apple Stores around the world that offer support, oh and get this: an OS with services like iCloud that does not spy on you, track you (unless you want it to), or sell any of your info.
Free services like yours Zuckerberg do not care about any of that, because they are just that: free. Except the selling the users info part which is quite the biggie for many of us. I don’t mind paying more for a secure device in my pocket that can do A, B, C, and D. I do mind using a ‘free’ service that only does E although without the privacy.
Last edited:
There are plenty of more egregious margins on goods in the clothing industry and others. Apple is not even top 50 of the worst....Don't understand about all the outraged people on here that are surprised Apple cares about making money!
Good point -- so far Amazon has flown under the radar and remains untarnished in this fray. Their systems contain significant personal information that is used for many purposes.
Apple have been a penny pinching company for years now. "+$500" seems to be Tim cooks go to Marketing value for new and refreshed products. Facebook is a creepy company not much higher than selling your sisters used panties to other creepy men.
At least people are finally seeing what a tool he is in real life. Cambridge was just one. Just keep watching.........
The bottom line (#3) is the top priority of any Fortune 500 company. And restated in various forms it really occupies every single one of the top 10 priorities for all of those companies. Singling out any one or two Fortune 500 companies and complaining that they are more concerned with their bottom lines ignores how any large (by dollar amount) business operates.
Yep - him and his buddies are the luckiest people on Earth. Richer than God by exploitng people with a stupid website that turns out to be entirely useless. I gotta say.... well played, Zuckerboy. The entire user base of facebook should sue him into poverty.
There has never been a person less deserving of wealth other than maybe the Kardashians.
At least Apple cares somewhat for their customers. FaceBook gives zero craps out anyone who uses their platform unless they start leaving in droves—like right now and a few other times in the past. This happens every time and they buy an ad to apologize in some big paper and put out some privacy tools that are a farce. If Apple didn't value customers, they would just sell of all of our data exactly like FaceBook. Not only does FaceBook not value customers, they don't even care about protecting the integrity of the press, foreign influences on elections, etc. They're systematically destroying our democracy with a smug look on their faces. They must be stopped. I realized a lot of this about FaceBook in 2010 when I closed my account and it's unfortunate that it has taken this long for the general public to wake up about their data/privacy practices.
Not true. Advertisers want the biggest pool they can target to. And again - just because you can't afford an iPhone doesn't mean you aren't worth advertising to.
I agree with Mark on that point.
Can you just imagine how divided and terrible a world would be without the likes, of Google and Facebook type companies.
It would be run by people like Tim and Apple, and you would have a great divide between the have's and have not's.
It would be a terrible world, and like days of the past, where the poor had zero access to things.
Thanks to companies like Google, Facebook etc, whether you are a multimillionaire like Tim or someone in some poor eastern country, you can still have access to the modern world of communications.
Can you just imagine how divided and terrible a world would be without the likes, of Google and Facebook type companies.
It would be run by people like Tim and Apple, and you would have a great divide between the have's and have not's.
It would be a terrible world, and like days of the past, where the poor had zero access to things.
Thanks to companies like Google, Facebook etc, whether you are a multimillionaire like Tim or someone in some poor eastern country, you can still have access to the modern world of communications.
Not actionable? Facebook has built the most effective advertising engine in modern times, based entirely on, yep, user data. The rest of your post is just Fox News spin.
But that's the thing, you may be a Facebook user but you're not a Facebook customer.
Zucked'in. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.
However, despite loosing a few billion here and there, it's not dented his arrogance.
The Zuck is the poster child for what's wrong with many (not all) millennials, but it really shouldn't come to anyone as a surprise.
I tried FB under a fake name back in '07 for 1 month and decided that it was an unsafe platform.
Haven't been back since, but I understand why many become addicted to it.
Say what you will about Tim Cook, but I don't see any CEO standing up for privacy as much as he is. It's one of the reasons I'm still using the Apple eco-system.
However, despite loosing a few billion here and there, it's not dented his arrogance.
The Zuck is the poster child for what's wrong with many (not all) millennials, but it really shouldn't come to anyone as a surprise.
I tried FB under a fake name back in '07 for 1 month and decided that it was an unsafe platform.
Haven't been back since, but I understand why many become addicted to it.
Say what you will about Tim Cook, but I don't see any CEO standing up for privacy as much as he is. It's one of the reasons I'm still using the Apple eco-system.
Ever try to get back into a FB account if you had 2-factor switched on and you switch devices? LOL. You cannot even find a damned contact number for FB.
Any company that doesn't even have so much as a live chat, 800 number, or a damned "contact us" form does not care about you. That is how I judge FB. Users are products, not customers to them.
I know that Apple is like any other retailer. They want to sell us stuff. But, if I need help with an Apple product as a user of Apple products? They have people who I can immediately contact.
This is how I gauge the level of caring by a company. If they have someone I can call if their crap does not work, then I at least know I'll be heard and assisted. FB is not available. It's really that simple.
Any company that doesn't even have so much as a live chat, 800 number, or a damned "contact us" form does not care about you. That is how I judge FB. Users are products, not customers to them.
I know that Apple is like any other retailer. They want to sell us stuff. But, if I need help with an Apple product as a user of Apple products? They have people who I can immediately contact.
This is how I gauge the level of caring by a company. If they have someone I can call if their crap does not work, then I at least know I'll be heard and assisted. FB is not available. It's really that simple.
I didn't repurpose anything. Here's exactly what he said:
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.
Zuck himself linked people that can't afford to pay and advertising.
What YOU don't understand is he is talking about TRUE POVERTY. Not the American version where they only have basic cable and slow wifi. I.E. developing countries where don't have enough money for food. FB is bringing free internet to such places because it is good for FB not because it cares about users or advertisers.