What about their shifting their algorithm based on initial complaints signal bars weren't as high as other phones and then switching them back because they tried to skirt the iPhone antennagate issue?
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
What about their shifting their algorithm based on initial complaints signal bars weren't as high as other phones and then switching them back because they tried to skirt the iPhone antennagate issue?
You can tell a lot about a person's ethical makeup by the way they react to having been kicked in the pants. They can either try to figure out why they've been walloped in the keister, and seek to repair the thing that brought it on, or they can try to take it out on somebody else. Zuckerberg's instinct clearly is the latter.
Milks? No.
I would say it as: Apple develops and manufactures premium products and sells them at premium prices, to millions of people who appreciate their value and gladly open their wallets to purchase. Year after year after year.
Who cares? I don't care if facebook cares about me, I don't care if Apple cares about me. They shouldn't care about me, they should care about my money. This is business, neither company owes me anything. As a consumer, you make a choice as to where you spend your money, that's it. If you don't like the product/service, don't buy it and move on.
Your question proves the point.
[doublepost=1522685566][/doublepost]
There is a dongle for that..
Truth is, as much money as Apple makes on hardware - it doesn’t mean it couldn’t have greatly benefited by going the way of google, Facebook and others and monetise your data. Just imagine the amount of money they could have made - and it’s probably less than 1% of people who bought Apple product simply due to not doing so (so the business case for not sharing your data is weak for Apple).
In fact, it’s one of the reasons why Siri is so much inferior to Google/Amazon variants, due to the level of privacy they apply to your data.
If you think either Apple or Facebook cares about you, you are naive and don't understand what the purpose of a corporation is.
I don't give a crap whether or not they "care about" me. They can dislike me all they want as long as they aren't handing my personal information out left and right.
Always FOLLOW THE MONEY. Apple is making (a lot of) money off me and people like me who buy their products and services, and that reduces their incentive to farm out data about me to marketers. At the end of the day, Tim Cook's words about privacy being a human right are all fine and good, but it's the MONEY that backs that up. Apple has a robust business selling hardware, software, and paid services, whereas Google and Facebook have very little to sell but gobs and gobs of data about their users. When Zuck runs his mouth, his company's very economic model contradicts him.
Last edited:
Yes I am - No one want this ad ****. Or are people in the us really liking this?
How is Tim Cook/Apple getting money from people's data?
Haha, yeah, everyone who uses Apple or Facebook is dumb.
OK, Neo, let me guess, you roll your own VPN and only use Linux PCs you build yourself from components you buy anonymously on the dark web. Am I close?
I would think Tim Cook is more interested in Apple users and protecting their privacy. He can do this and maintain Apple's competitiveness and making a profit. You get what you pay for.
With Zuck, he has stockholders and they want a profit from FB's existence. The only thing he has is the users he's giving the services away for free. Back when he first started doing the FB style of things (first iteration) he was shocked how much information users gave him for free to use the service and in texts called them dumb (expletive).
But for Zuck if he has no users he has no mechanism to make profits. He needs their data and he needs them to give it freely to him. There are those that sell their data (and I would argue souls or the essence of who they are) to FB and are uninformed they are doing so. There are those that will use FB because it is free and they are cheap. I think there is some responsibility on the regulations side to help protect consumers. But FB has an interesting argument. Their users are not consumers. They are the product.
My spidey sense tells me one of two things will happen. Either the users will send FB the way of MySpace OR they will continue using FB and FB will continue to use their data.
For the thinking person, we should strongly consider what we are willing to give away for free products. I typically steer clear of free stuff because 1) it's either made cheaply or 2) they are selling you up a river for the free item. I would prefer to either pay for my products or go without them. I suspect most mac users fall into that category.
With Zuck, he has stockholders and they want a profit from FB's existence. The only thing he has is the users he's giving the services away for free. Back when he first started doing the FB style of things (first iteration) he was shocked how much information users gave him for free to use the service and in texts called them dumb (expletive).
But for Zuck if he has no users he has no mechanism to make profits. He needs their data and he needs them to give it freely to him. There are those that sell their data (and I would argue souls or the essence of who they are) to FB and are uninformed they are doing so. There are those that will use FB because it is free and they are cheap. I think there is some responsibility on the regulations side to help protect consumers. But FB has an interesting argument. Their users are not consumers. They are the product.
My spidey sense tells me one of two things will happen. Either the users will send FB the way of MySpace OR they will continue using FB and FB will continue to use their data.
For the thinking person, we should strongly consider what we are willing to give away for free products. I typically steer clear of free stuff because 1) it's either made cheaply or 2) they are selling you up a river for the free item. I would prefer to either pay for my products or go without them. I suspect most mac users fall into that category.
I would say Tim Cook / Apple are indirectly getting money from people's data.
My iTunes account is tied to my profile. They know what I buy and where I live. They also can typecast my persona based on my iTunes store spending habits. In return, they will know what type of a) buyer I am and b) what type of interests I have. It's already happening in the App Store on my phone as they know what games/apps to target me with. They will also know what types of services and products to market next iteration assuming I fall under their targeted umbrella.
The difference in this case is just 1st party vs 3rd party. Apple can freely mine your data for 1st party activities.
Although I think Facebook is at a worse position here, let's not be stubborn in thinking Apple isn't getting money from people's data.
That pretty much sums it up FWIW - Apple is putting a lot of effort in to changing the world with it's products but Apple is focused on changing how Apple makes it's products as well. Apple has a division in it's company called 'Supplier Responsibility' Apple audits and maintains their supply chain to ensure it's ethical. Apple is also working towards being able to 100% fully recycle iPhones and other products. I have personal knowledge that Apple is doing this and it's proves that Apple does care...
Facebook cares about its users like a rancher cares about his/her cattle. "Sure I take care of them! I feed them, I vaccine them, I let them roam 'till their heart's content. I love them all, very much!"
Mark needs to understand that most of his revenue comes from businesses and advertisements. Without mobile devices, such as Android and iPhone Facebook wouldn't have the popularity as it does now. Mark just needs to accept his own faults without intervening with others opinions.