Mark Zuckerberg blasts Apple CEO Cook’s criticism of Facebook as ‘extremely glib and not at all aligned with the truth’

“Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg rejected Apple CEO Tim Cook’s critique of his company’s business model, which Cook characterized as a scheme to monetize customers, calling it ‘glib’ and ‘not aligned with the truth,'” Jen Kirby reports for VOX. “‘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,’ Zuckerberg told Vox co-founder Ezra Klein on his podcast.”

“In an interview with Klein, Zuckerberg described Cook’s assessment that Apple has a sounder business model because it sells products to users, rather than selling users to advertisers as ‘extremely glib, and not at all aligned with the truth,'” Kirby reports. “Zuckerberg told Klein that Facebook serving people and using an ad-supported business model aren’t incompatible. ‘I don’t think at all that that means that we don’t care about people,’ Zuckerberg said.”

“Cook pushed for increased regulation of Facebook and other sites that build profiles based off personal data, too. ‘I think the best regulation is no regulation, is self-regulation,” the Apple CEO said. “However, I think we’re beyond that here,'” Kirby reports. “Cook’s comments stood out because they came amid renewed criticism of Facebook following revelations that consulting firm Cambridge Analytica harvested personal data from 50 million Facebook users.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Apple should excise the Facebook cancer from being included by default in their products. If users want to add Facebook to their sharing capabilities, they should be able to do so, but Zuckerberg’s POS privacy-trampling perversion should not the built into Apple’s products as it is wholly incompatible with Apple’s unwavering stance on protecting users’ privacy.

Apple CEO Cook: Facebook should have self-regulated, but it’s too late for that now – March 28, 2018
U.S. FTC will investigate Facebook over privacy or lack thereof – March 26, 2018
Apple CEO Cook calls for more data oversight, ‘well-crafted regulation’ after Facebook debacle – March 26, 2018
Facebook has been collecting call history and SMS data from Android devices for years; Apple iOS devices unaffected – March 25, 2018
Apple CEO Cook ramps up pressure on Facebook, calls for more regulations on data privacy – March 24, 2018
Steve Jobs tried to warn Mark Zuckerberg about privacy in 2010 – March 23, 2018
Facebook has gotten too big, too powerful, too influential for Mark Zuckerberg to handle – March 23, 2018
How to block Facebook completely from your Mac – March 22, 2018
How Facebook made it impossible to delete Facebook – March 22, 2018
What to expect from Facebook’s Zuckerberg if he testifies before Congress – March 21, 2018
Why Facebook’s blatant disregard for users’ privacy could be very good for Apple – March 21, 2018
Facebook’s surveillance machine – March 21, 2018
Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg AWOL from Facebook’s damage control session – March 20, 2018
U.S. FTC reportedly probing Facebook’s abuse of personal data as UK summons Zuckerberg for questioning – March 20, 2018
The problem isn’t Cambridge Analytica: It’s Facebook – March 19, 2018
Apple: Privacy is a fundamental right – September 27, 2017


    1. Meh. Apple does not build in Facebook or even provide a method for creating a facebook account. They build in a method for Facebook users to leverage their account on service from Apple’s apps.

      Since a huge majority of Apple’s customers would install Facebook integration as their very first action on buying an Apple product, it’s silly to suggest that Apple should put users through that red tape in a wrong-headed attempt to make their customers think about what they’re doing(?)

      Either exclude Facebook outright on principle (a la Flash) or keep doing what they’re doing, which is to allow the huge number of Facebook users to use Facebook from Apple’s platform.

  1. Facebook’s screw ups being what they are, Cook’s comments betray yet another apparent lack of understanding of the Internet, users, and technology in general. The “free” Internet as we know it would not exist if it were not for selling eyeballs to advertisers. Which, by the way, would make Apple’s toys far less necessary to everyday life. I would bet the number of Apple devices connected to Facebook is massive.

    Also, I’ve never seen Facebook come pre-installed on An Apple device. I have seen Apple devices know how to log into Facebook given the correct credentials.

    1. “I’ve never seen Facebook come pre-installed on an Apple device.”

      Not the Facebook app, but Apple bakes FB into iOS’s sharing prefs by default.

    2. Wrong. In the early days of the web, people sustained themselves by offering products or services people were actually willing to pay for. Advertising was honest, for the most part. Sites required paid subscriptions for premium features. The notion of ‘eyeballs’ came along later, and what we are seeing now is the worst possible end result of a greed tech claimed in the beginning to be subverting. The web was not founded as a commercial platform, that was never the idea. I confess I’m being presumptuous, but you sound very young, I’m guessing you weren’t around then. The Zuckerbergs of the world didn’t exist in the beginning, and the web has been the worse for their ascendance. Cook isn’t wrong about this.

      1. I still have a copy in shrink-wrap of Netscape! Yes, I would prefer to pay for things and have less than be r*ped over and sold out by “free” services such as FaceBook.
        Zuck is in deep, and he’s desperate now…

      2. Few people actually paid for Netscape or anything else. It is the advertising model that sustains the free Internet. I’ve often recommended to MDN that they dump the advertiser model and sell subscriptions for $100 per quarter. It would get rid of the riffraf in the comments section. Similar to the model. They prefer to stick with ads. So we continue to pay with our eyeballs.

        Advertising is responsible for the explosion of the Web. If you think not, consider the frown that paying for streaming music and television places on people’s faces even as they complain about advertising in traditional models. Facebook has a billion users. I don’t know why they don’t charge $1.00 per month, and allow absolute privacy. They must believe that the only way to succeed is advertising.

        If you can figure out a way for services to monetize without advertising or charging users directly, you will go down in history as the person who saves the Internet.

  2. Let me correct this misleading statement:

    “consulting firm Cambridge Analytica PURCHASED FROM FACEBOOK, personal data from 50 million Facebook users.”

  3. Nothing to do with Facebook and everything to do with the weirdness of using an iPhone these daze (I don’t Facebook).

    Just now I was leafing through a local real estate magazine (dead tree edition) and read a short article about an obscure little chocolate maker in Dallas so I pulled out my iPhone, started to write the name in the search field and 5 letters into a NINETEEN letter web address it popped up.

    At that point I could’ve been searching for anything starting with “katew” (I even have a relative whose name starts this way) but it went RIGHT TO THE SITE I WAS LOOKING AT IN A FREE MAGAZINE!!!

    There was no ‘www’ or backslash or hashtags or anything, just 5 letters of a site I had never heard of 2 minutes before.

    This sux.

  4. Well then, all Suckerberg needs to prove his statement by putting a simple preference in FB. “Share your data with FaceBook? Yes or No”
    That simple.

    1. Gotta love the FB employees reactions to this.

      Dozens of employees criticized the unknown leakers at the company. “How fucking terrible that some irresponsible jerk decided he or she had some god complex that jeopardizes our inner culture and something that makes Facebook great?”

      Nice to see the employees drinking the Suckerberg coolaid.

  5. As a marketing professional who has advertised on Facebook using their Business Manager interface I can assure you that Cook has it right – Facebook users are the product and they do traffic in your personal data.

    Furthermore, Facebook advertising results are often a scam – we received many “fake” social actions from people who did not fit our targeted profile at all – one person lived in a housing project in Chicago with no relation to our advertising whatsoever. What Facebook also doesn’t tell you when you advertise on mobile is that a large portion of your impressions end up on their publishing platform (like Flipboard.) While you can choose desktop vs. mobile, within mobile you cannot stop advertising to their publishing platform. So when Facebook can’t find enough of your target market on news feeds and their regular page, they dump your ads onto the publishing platform. Most advertisers, I bet, have no clue how they are being duped.

    Zuckerberg just picked a fight with the wrong company and the wrong person. He has really shown his immaturity and inexperience lately. What I don’t think he appreciates about Apple’s high prices is that these high prices allow Apple to build insanely great products that SUSTAIN the company to build even more great products. IMHO this is one of the truly honorable and respectful ways of building a business – the consumer always has the choice where they want to spend their money. When they buy an Apple product at a high price, they are voting that the product has real value to them. The high margins Apple earns enables them to continue to make great products. That Zuckerberg doesn’t understand this shows how truly inexperienced and distorted he is. Its like he thinks he can defy the laws of physics. Arrogance and ignorance!

  6. Tim Cook shouldn’t have said anything about Facebook because there isn’t any good reason for him to do so. If Apple has a different business model than Facebook, that’s all that matters. Tim Cook should have said “No comment” and walked away.

    Zuckerberg is calling Tim Cook a liar about Facebook’s well-known business model of the user being the product. The biggest FANG investors clearly understand that the “user is the product” business model is one of the most profitable business models around. All of Wall Street realizes that much or they wouldn’t be pumping those companies so much. Facebook and Google surely don’t sell durable goods or services so what else are they making their money from except users’ personal data.

    1. No, let Cook talk. Someone has to call out that snot Zuckerberg for his machinations. Zuckerberg is as opportunistic and amoral as the blinkered, inhuman traders and speculators who value only money; – a twisted Gepetto delighting in his dancing marionettes – less a man than a shit-smear on the social fabric.

      I thought of Zuckerberg’s “apology” when the NYT quoted HAL-9000 the other day:

      “I know I’ve made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal.” Delusional is the new normal.

    2. Facebook business model – puhleeze. Using advertising as the foundation of your monetization strategy is like using low/lowest price to sell. That aint a strategy – that’s admitting that your product has no real value so you convince some other sucker to foot the bill.

      All you need to know about Facebook’s legitimacy is that they allowed bots and trolls to populate their traffic so that they could fake their stats to the investment and advertising communities. Cook is rightly calling them out for it, especially because Zuckerberg was warned about it by Jobs and Cook many times. Its not just Facebook’s mess, now, its ALL of our mess, and I am deeply offended by Zuckerberg’s lack of transparency and modesty. His business model is lazy and weak. His response to Cook is truly repulsive.

  7. Zuckerberg is a sick Fuck. immoral. greedy.

    he OBFUSCATES the issues with this cheap “charge you more convince you that they actually care more about you”
    WTF does how much you charge have to do with anti-privacy or caring?!
    Apple fans gladly pay more for they at least get a real product & top service!
    what do we get for FB? fake socializing & ad hassle & losing all your privacy rights!
    Plus Apple like not other co. fights for privacy, not the other way round.

    Zuckerberg: ‘I don’t think at all that that means that we don’t care about people.” – huh? just because a billionaire zionist pig says it, it’s right, it’s law, it’s moral?! so what if you think that Sugarhill, EXPLAIN why selling private data is CARING?!

  8. I’ll concede that Zuckerberg has a point about how a service like this one can’t expect people to pay up front and grow as large as it has. It wouldn’t have. But that doesn’t excuse the tactics used by the system, which by the way is software. And software doesn’t do anything by accident…it is deliberately designed. Everything FB does is the result of a tactical decision, and I think as the average Joes of the world learn more about what the service actually is the more push back there will be. I don’t know that regulation is necessary….Apple (or any other company) can push back with another system that nets the same sorts of human interactions and fund it differently. Maybe after this, some people will be willing to pay for the service in some way. And maybe Apple is the company to do it. It’s all very creepy, and I guess at the end of the day if creepy continues to succeed then the human race is getting what it deserves. The market can decide that, and I do trust Apple so hope that it is the company to create a new environment that clearly values that which FB does not. Something with a dang soul would be nice.

  9. Friend: How did you get all this personal information from all these people
    Zuck: They just sent it to me
    Zuck: Dumb Fucks!

    This attitude more than likely held true all the way from THEN to NOW.

  10. All this free verses high priced, user being the product verses us having a product to use, was shown to me vividly with Spotify. The free tear offers ads, and I’m usually fine with ads, except these were ads for condoms. Yes, unnecessary, stupid, pointless sex, when sptofiy should know, via Facebook, that even though I’m a white male in his 20’s, that the fact that I listen to video game music remakes means that I am not the type of person that would want condoms, especially not every five minutes. So, not only are the ads repulsive to me, they’re useless, and people have complained and complained for years and nothing’s happened because of it. And that’s what we get for free, ads and AI’s trying to figure out people. Of course, Facebook doesn’t seem to do too many tasteless ads, but they probably have better ads to choose from than Sptofiy. But another problem. If we do go back to no ads, no user data collection, how would we pay for all the services we want? Google, a cent per search or so. Google Docs, another subscription probably. Youtube, hey there’s another monthly bill, along with iCloud storage and Apple Music, and Netflix… Although Apple may have their own films and shows then anyways, so Apple Film… another $10. How would people pay for all that, probably up to $50 or so a month, just for Internet services, not even taking into account Internet itself, phone bill, all that. Life is getting expensive, and money isn’t flowing around much.


Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.