They have very selected target data, I've used it for ads before and other research.
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
They have very selected target data, I've used it for ads before and other research.
based on demo/psycho graphics. No PII. And the advertiser is never in possession of the data. So you can admit you were wrong any time. It's all good.
So, I think we need to think of this as levels, not companies:
Level 1: A company does not use your data, and instead you pay for a product or service and get what you pay for. Apple is roughly here, though it gets a little murky with iAds and how it sells its stuff on the app stores and Apple music. This is ok from a privacy standpoint, and whether the company "cares" about you or is "fair" to the customer in other ways is irrelevant.
Level 2: Ad-based good guy- I think this is what Google does in theory if not in practice. In this case, the company acts as a go-between. The customer uses the company's free products, and as a part of that gives info for the company. Advertisers could then go to the company, who in theory brokers between its customers and advertisers. As long as the original company is the only one I see and I get ads when I use the free services, then I'm generally ok with this.
Level 3: Advertiser free for all- everyone else who uses all methods possible to get private user data and sell it to advertisers. I think we could all agree that this isn't cool.
Two points from here:
So sure- I'm really happy that Apple is so dedicated to privacy, but that isn't the only thing that defines them as a company (I'll give Mark this point but...). Facebook, however, I feel is guilty of things like being lax on privacy, not being clear to their customers about privacy, and bullying their customers into accepting bad privacy because of their dominant market position. (I ultimately think Tim's statements, while self-serving and self-advertising, are more on the point here.)
Level 1: A company does not use your data, and instead you pay for a product or service and get what you pay for. Apple is roughly here, though it gets a little murky with iAds and how it sells its stuff on the app stores and Apple music. This is ok from a privacy standpoint, and whether the company "cares" about you or is "fair" to the customer in other ways is irrelevant.
Level 2: Ad-based good guy- I think this is what Google does in theory if not in practice. In this case, the company acts as a go-between. The customer uses the company's free products, and as a part of that gives info for the company. Advertisers could then go to the company, who in theory brokers between its customers and advertisers. As long as the original company is the only one I see and I get ads when I use the free services, then I'm generally ok with this.
Level 3: Advertiser free for all- everyone else who uses all methods possible to get private user data and sell it to advertisers. I think we could all agree that this isn't cool.
Two points from here:
- Being a good or caring company isn't solely based on providing privacy and informed consent to end users, but that it is a part of it. Just because your business model doesn't deal in this, does not solely define a company as good or bad.
- Level 3 style companies aren't necessarily bad (though they often are), but informed consent is crucial to either a level 2 or 3 company. Its not acceptable to just assume the customer knows what they are signing up for. Frankly, many, many companies purposely try to obfuscate this (burying it in pages long Terms & Conditions in confusing language) to make more money. That's not cool. And its also not cool when a company like Facebook has a monopoly on their own type of service, and many users feel they have no choice but to accept bad privacy policies.
So sure- I'm really happy that Apple is so dedicated to privacy, but that isn't the only thing that defines them as a company (I'll give Mark this point but...). Facebook, however, I feel is guilty of things like being lax on privacy, not being clear to their customers about privacy, and bullying their customers into accepting bad privacy because of their dominant market position. (I ultimately think Tim's statements, while self-serving and self-advertising, are more on the point here.)
A little bitterness and envy perhaps? What other reasons would you have for hating someone you do not know? Living in Plano, TX can do that to a person since the goal there is to one-up your neighbor with the next great Lexus. Lived there for many years.
The grammar in this article made my head hurt.
Valid.
I would also like to add that in the case of Google (for example) where data is so important, it is in the BEST interest to not violate their user's privacy. Because that's a bulk of their business. If they fail to secure and protect this data, they stand to lose their business.
Ad supported revenue is one thing, selling costumers data for an election influencing company is another.
And those bastards from CA are coming to Brasil next! Get the **** out! Facebook should be shutdown.
And those bastards from CA are coming to Brasil next! Get the **** out! Facebook should be shutdown.
Google, the company that specifically wrote code to bypass Safari and continue tracking without consent. Sounds like a company I should trust.
I'd be surprised if anyone envies The Zuck at this particular moment in time. LOL.
What does that poster living in Plano have to do with anything? Not everyone from Plano is like the people you seem to have been spending time with when you lived there. I mean, no town is a homogeneous unit.
Out of the two, Zuckerburg is far the worst. I would be astounded if anyone with a brain believes what Zuckerburg says of anything.
However, I can see how much Tim cares simply by him selling the old mac mini and mac pro at the same price as >3 years ago.
However, I can see how much Tim cares simply by him selling the old mac mini and mac pro at the same price as >3 years ago.
Oh, a lesson in altruistically connecting people from the guy who bought up a huge amount of Hawaiians land, refused to participate or even appear in the planning process, erected giant stone walls all around it, broke up the landscape and community, all to build a monument to his own greatness.
I'm starting to look forward to his inevitable demise.
I'm starting to look forward to his inevitable demise.
Nor do they have a reason to be performing illegal psychological and emotion human experiments.
Apple - the company that changes their algorithms do either show you have a great signal or not; who was keeping location data for year, and so on.
No company is infallible when it comes to data. My point stands. It is not in Google best interest to sell/give away/ give access to your personal data.
Lets see...
Working with personal data mined from 50 million Facebook users, Cambridge Analytica used modeling techniques to micro-target specific voters and manipulate a United States presidential election.
That pretty much says it all for me.
So we're comparing the above with Tim Cook's Apple? With some here feeling both companies and CEOs behave similarly?
Working with personal data mined from 50 million Facebook users, Cambridge Analytica used modeling techniques to micro-target specific voters and manipulate a United States presidential election.
That pretty much says it all for me.
So we're comparing the above with Tim Cook's Apple? With some here feeling both companies and CEOs behave similarly?
Last edited:
What was it they called him? Oh... the "face of neocolonialism."
Yeah... he is not worth defending.
LOL, no, no envy. Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates are both richer than Mark Zuckerberg, and while I don't idolize Bezos or Gates (though I do admire Gates more for his philanthropy), I don't have the same unease with either of them as I do with Zuckerberg.
The reason I don't like Zuckerberg is that chat he has never denied in which he called people dumb f***s for giving them personal data. It's hard for me to take his concerns about privacy seriously in light of them.
I'm not rich, and in fact I didn't grow up in Plano, I grew up in South Texas, very poor (floor boards exposed to the dirt below lol), and I'm grateful for the free public education and then the student loans which helped me get a four-year degree... I live pretty modestly in an apartment... and have frankly no desire to have a luxury car, I drive a 2014 Ford C-MAX and it's really perfect for me.
Class warfare is not my thing at all, I think decent, hard working people can be found across the socioeconomic strata, and similarly, there are cheaters and corrupt people across the same. I don't see being poor as a virtue or a vice, neither being wealthy.
EDIT: oh, and my parents now live in Fort Collins, Colorado, I love the Rockies.
Last edited:
It all comes down to the business model, and Facebook’s entire model is based on harvesting our data. Apple’s model is based on selling high quality hardware.
This debate has very little to do with which company “cares” more about the average Joe. Both companies are corporations and will work to maximize profit in their own way.
The rest is spin and noise!
This debate has very little to do with which company “cares” more about the average Joe. Both companies are corporations and will work to maximize profit in their own way.
The rest is spin and noise!
If you don't know what C level means, ask, rather than making pseudo-sarcastic comments.
I think the question was genuine. One can work in the C-suite without actually being a C himself, y'know.
These folks do have staff to assist them.