10 ms·
Zuckerberg wants to 'inflict pain' on Apple for privacy changes
- iwi885123jdkak 6y ago"allegedly" Unless you can prove it, or you have the genuine reputation to be taken for your word (good luck with that), it means nothing. And It really amazes me how some people take articles like this at face-value, believing anything they say. If they said "this" person said "this" thing, as-long as they hate him, they'll instantly jump on believing and ridiculing.
- rudderz 6y agoDo you believe Zuck called people who trust him "Dumb Fucks"? Talk about a genuine reputation.
- RL_Quine 6y ago> They trust me — dumb fucks," says Zuckerberg in one of the instant messages, first published by former Valleywag Nicholas Carlson at Silicon Alley Insider, and now confirmed by Zuckerberg himself in Jose Antonio Vargas's New Yorker piece. Zuckerberg now tells Vargas, "I think I've grown and learned a lot" since those instant messages. From the horses mouth.
- meowster 6y ago> learned a lot I've learned to not write my opinions down where someone can use them against me again, or say them where they can be recorded. - Zuck, probably
- dylan604 6y agoI think the word you looking for is "allegedly" instead of "probably".
- actuator 6y agoor he has really grown. Is it really surprising that people can be immature when they are young and grow to learn from their mistakes? It is easy to hate on Zuck so most people love to bring his past to malign his image. The grown up thing would be to trust his words but verify by his actions, not believe hearsay stories published for clicks. Even for people who commit serious crimes, we as a society are looking for ways to integrate them in our society through a correction system. We are talking about just words spoken as a teen/tween here.
- ydlr 6y agoIf he had learned from his mistake, he would have shut down facebook by now. Creating a website for the purpose of exploiting people you see as "dumb fucks" could be a youthful indescretion. Continuing to operating your dumb fuck exploiting service for nearly twenty years is the behavior of a sociopath.
- actuator 6y agoI don't use Facebook or Instagram but they are hardly just an exploitation service. They do help people in staying connected, specially with ones who are not in your very close circle. There is definitely a positive value that the paltform brings among the many negative ones as well.
- thaumasiotes 6y agoThat... seems like the correct lesson to learn there?
- smilespray 6y agoI thought the proper moral lesson was to change your ways instead of making sure you don't get caught again. But who cares about morals?
- jfengel 6y agoPeople say lots of stuff that they would regret seeing on the front page of the New York Times. They mean something different when published as isolated quotes for a general audience than part of a conversation between people who know each other. So while it's true that this might be a "gaffe" in the sense of accidentally telling the truth, it could also be that it's not what it seems to be. When every word you say is scrutinized, you take a lot more risks that any of them will be seen as "gaffes", and the only way to prevent that is to avoid being quotable. The adversarial nature with the press and the public is a lesson that a famous figure does have to learn. Not the only one, but an important one.
- rightbyte 6y agoThere is a photo of Zuckerberg with taped over webcam and dumb plug into the 3.5mm jack on his laptop. I guess he knpws why to be paranoid.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- john2010 6y ago> It really amazes me how some people take articles like this at face-value, b Unbelievable but true. Very sad indeed.
- falcolas 6y agoYes, that’s what the article said. > Behind closed doors, Zuckerberg allegedly wanted to bring Apple down a peg, supposedly telling his team "we need to inflict pain" to the iPhone maker. As for the headline... well, it’s a decade past time to acknowledge that clickbait headlines are the norm. It’s how they get people to read the article, where they can make money from ads. The headlines will always be clickbait until this changes.
- smilespray 6y agoWe're likely in for the long haul. Clickbait-y titles have existed since the invention of the printing press.
- arkitaip 6y agoIt doesn't help that zuckerberg reputation is absolute dog shit. We are talking about a man that many considers is a threat to democracy. It wouldn't be out of character for him to be petty and vindictive.
- smilespray 6y agoI wonder how many of the higher-level execs and board members of Facebook consider him a liability. They absolutely should.
- whitepaint 6y agoYeah, absolutely. For every stupid decision he made (buying Instagram, Whatsapp, Oculus etc.), making the company worth almost $1 Trillion, yeah, he's a horrible CEO. As a stockholder, I just hate him.
- reilly3000 6y agoOne can be a both good capitalist and a threat to democracy.
- fuzzfactor 6y agoI agree that capitalism and democracy have nothing to do with each other. But I still think a capitalist who is a threat to US democracy is not a good capitalist. Not good for democracy, not good for other capitalists and/or entrepreneurs, not good for the capital itself, and not good enough for me.
- dmantis 6y agoPablo Escobar was pretty good at making money too. Nobody here talk about money making, there are things more important in life. Like, you know, not running drug traffic or mass espionage.
- whitepaint 6y ago> a man that many considers a threat to democracy Oh Jesus Christ talk about over-exaggerations.
- mint2 6y agoIt’s pretty in character with zuckerburg so that’s probably why, and the public moves of the two companies align with that part of the article. I’ll agree with you that the quote wasn’t sourced as well as it should be, but it’s hard to fault people when they are told a duck quacked and take it at face value. When someone does something in line with their reputation, people accept a lower burden of proof. If he comes out and denies it, then that’s another thing or if it was a material statement for a binding decision then it would also need more proof.
- uniqueid 6y agoor you have the genuine reputation to be taken for your word (good luck with that) I agree with the sentiment to a large extent, but it's also a question of probability. The original source is the Wall Street Journal, which means there's at least a non-zero probability that stories with 'alleged' and 'anonymous' in them are true :) Traditionally, a big publication would vet stories like this. Maybe someone who knows more about journalism than I do could weigh in re: the state of editors and fact-checking in 2021. Given that publications today expect their writers to churn out story after story, the vetting process has probably gone downhill.
- ergocoder 6y ago> which means there's at least a non-zero probability I am thinking this is a very low bar for anything. If we want to be technical, according to Quantum physics, doesn't anything have non-zero probability? :P
- kordlessagain 6y agoI think that Tim Cook is telling the truth and that he has genuine reputation: > Tim Cook calls out Facebook's business model, says it leads to 'violence,' 'polarization' This statement seems to stand on its own, without a need for "proof". If the business model itself leads to this, the conclusion is that the internal conversations about protecting that model also lead to violence and/or polarized thinking. If we look at the alleged occurrence, we can then draw a conclusion without the need for "reputation". There's also the manifesto.
- mensetmanusman 6y agoPeople lead to violence, FB is an internet tool. E.g. in Myanmar FB is used to plan genocide, in Germany, they didn’t need FB 90 years ago to do the same.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- stadia42 6y ago> If they said "this" person said "this" thing, as-long as they hate him, they'll instantly jump on believing and ridiculing. This is such a perfect observation! My very intelligent and well-educated friends, most of them successful engineers in the Silicon Valley, behave exactly as you described. And it's not at all limited to the current political divisions in the US. Why would seemingly smart people trust random posts on internet, as long as those posts confirm what they want to hear?
- Someone 6y agoThe article in the WSJ (https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-meets-apple-in-clash-of-the-tech-titanswe-need-to-inflict-pain-11613192406 https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-meets-apple-in-clash-o...) says “according to people familiar with the exchange”, not “allegedly”. That means the WSJ is convinced he said it.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- gord288 6y agoZuck has nothing but contempt for Facebook users. The classic Zuck quote, "They trust me — dumb fucks" still applies. https://gawker.com/5636765/facebook-ceo-admits-to-calling-users-dumb-fucks https://gawker.com/5636765/facebook-ceo-admits-to-calling-us...
- Nextgrid 6y agoTo be fair, who hasn't said stupid things when they were younger?
- smilespray 6y agoHe has done little to suggest he has changed his ways.
- xwdv 6y agoHe wasn’t even wrong. Most users are dumb fucks and anyone that has had to design interfaces knows this.
- smilespray 6y agoAs a UX/UI designer, this is entirely the wrong conclusion to make. Users come in all shapes and forms with different priorities, distractions and abilities. They are good at the things that matter to them. A common mistake software developers make is believing their software is important enough to warrant the investment in time it takes to learn it. It usually isn't.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- floatingatoll 6y agoHe could reasonably be predicted to have said this, but this is still a terrible post for HN. At minimum I would expect "Multiple sources confirmed" for this to be better than rumor.
- api 6y agoThis is the kind of shit that really keeps me in the Apple ecosystem and helps me forgive the things they get wrong.
- secondo 6y agoWhat could Facebook possibly do that would harm Apple more than it would harm Facebook?
- Nextgrid 6y agoI guess they could release a Facebook phone and an entire new mobile platform? I think they have both the hardware/software engineering capability to do it (see Oculus), plenty of scummy companies that are happy to jump on the bandwagon and release their apps for it as well as a userbase which will swallow it right away (they could be sold very cheaply and subsidized by the collected data)?
- mig39 6y agoDid they try that already? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTC_First https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTC_First https://www.cnet.com/news/heres-why-the-facebook-phone-flopped/ https://www.cnet.com/news/heres-why-the-facebook-phone-flopp...
- bdcravens 6y agoWorth noting that Apple partnered on a phone before the iPhone, and it also flopped. https://www.gsmarena.com/flashback_the_motorola_rokr_e1_was_a_dud_but_it_paved_the_way_for_the_iphone-news-38934.php https://www.gsmarena.com/flashback_the_motorola_rokr_e1_was_...
- actuator 6y agoI don't think FB should do hardware honestly. Hardware requires a lot of patience and integration as Microsoft and Google discovered with their phones. Adding to this, FB's image is such at this point that most people won't touch their hardware. FB has a lot of engineering talent and experience on distributed operations and services side, so if they really want to diversify, perhaps should leverage that.
- adambyrtek 6y agoI think Microsoft has already demonstrated that launching a successful new mobile platform is extremely difficult (if not impossible) at this point regardless of resources and hardware capabilities.
- theknocker 6y agoMaybe I’ll upgrade my iPhone after all.
- matthias509 6y agoWe should always remember what is being sold and who the customers are. Apple sells iPhones to consumers. Facebook sells our attention to businesses. Both companies are trying to sell more of their product. Of these two I am much more concerned about Facebook because I have much less control over the transaction.
- cma 6y agoApple also sells customers to app makers through store fees. They don't just sell phones.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- smilespray 6y agoThey also sell search result placements on the App Store, which is making the already poor search function worse. The whole "services as the next growth segment" concept is a possible slippery slope for Apple.
- ineedasername 6y agoNo more than a mall sells customers to the retailers it contains. (With the caveat that, with Apple, customers aren't allowed to shop at another mall.) The mall (app store) may let retailers advertise via kiosks and banners etc, but that's basically keyword advertising, not selling personal information. Providing a marketplace like this might loosely be construed as "selling customers" but it is in a massively different class of less abusive behavior than how facebook sells customers.
- kyriakos 6y agoMalls also don't enforce their payment system
- Proziam 6y agoThey also don't stop people from going to a neighboring mall. Unfortunately, the app stores' owners certainly do that. https://www.wired.com/story/install-apps-outside-app-store-sideload/ https://www.wired.com/story/install-apps-outside-app-store-s...
- spoonjim 6y agoI mean if he really wants to put his money where his mouth is, just pull and disable all iOS apps. He’ll lose a lot of users but so will Apple.
- mnd999 6y agoThe Facebook mobile site works just fine on iOS. Without the app though their data colllection is much less effective. They’d really just be hurting themselves.
- nowherebeen 6y agoThe poison pill strategy is an interesting idea. I think people that buy iPhones tend to be more sticky with the Apple ecosystem than they are to the Facebook app. I am not sure about Whatsapp and Instagram though; so it would be interesting to see. My gut feeling is that people would simply look for alternatives to Whatsapp and possibly Instagram.
- spoonjim 6y agoI would keep Apple and ditch the Facebook properties but I think my wife would switch to Android.
- solarhoma 6y agoIf anything this move would give me an excuse to not be on Instagram. But the wife’s obsession with FB and IG would not bode well with the decision.
- names_are_hard 6y agoA better strategy would be to keep the ios apps as they currently are, and release new cool features to Android only. This way there won't be a "big event" catalyst to get people to ditch Facebook, instead over time they'll get fomo from their Android friends. Think of how imessage doesn't completely block users from interacting with Android users but still creates an "in group" feeling for the ios users.
- laurent92 6y agoI like how we are focussing on this Facebook-Apple story, and meanwhile the real story is that Facebook has nothing against Google. And that is the big problem. It’s a form of disenfranchisement: Lowerclass people more often have Androids and have much less choice in tracking, while higherclass people can at least choose, by the sheer design of their phone.
- bdcravens 6y agoHow would you solve this problem?
- laurent92 6y agoiOS is: - requesting permissions at the time of using the feature, - giving permissions like GPS only for limited time, or to subsets of photos only, - and requires app to keep full features if permission is not granted. It should be required that Android did the same. After all, a pure market is where people are fully informed and have a choice, so there could be a theoretical basis for requiring Android not to be confusing with permissions.
- grishka 6y ago> It should be required that Android did the same. Assuming you go through Google Play, which you aren't required to. And assuming Google Play actually reviews apps, including every single update, which it sometimes does but crappily.
- vr46 6y ago^^ Zuckerberg is a noisy neighbour having a tantrum if he's taking this personally.
- hutzlibu 6y agoNot a problem, because he bought his neighbour houses, too, so he can have his privacy. https://www.scmp.com/magazines/style/news-trends/article/3009010/why-mark-zuckerberg-buys-properties-surround-his-10 https://www.scmp.com/magazines/style/news-trends/article/300...
- hyko 6y agoFacebook has zero leverage against Apple.
- ineedasername 6y agoWhat leverage would Facebook even have that could be used to "inflict pain" on Apple?
- shanemlk 6y agoI will translate article to English: "zuck is a cuck"
- dang 6y agoWe've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
- shanemlk 6y agoI'm I banned?
- shanemlk 6y agoSeems like it's still working, Dang. I can email you if you want though.
- dang 6y agoBanned accounts can still post, but their posts aren't seen by for most users. Only the ones with 'showdead' turned on in their profile see these comments, plus the author of the post. Does that make sense? If you sincerely want to use HN as intended, as described at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html, you're more than welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com.
- ksec 6y agoIt seems Zuckerberg has a higher chance of inflicting pain on Apple than either Microsoft or Google. Google doesn't know what they are doing. They have so far shown nothing, zip, zero in strategy and vision. And their execution aren't that good either. Microsoft, despite the new direction are somewhat better in execution. But it is arguably much the same as they were in the 90s. I guess Steve Jobs put it best, the lack of taste. If you think the criticism is hash, that is because the comparison is relative, it doesn't mean they are bad in absolute terms, it is just Apple is on another level with strategic play and execution. ( Apple started their Qualcomm play in early 2014, and likely even earlier off record before they sued Qualcomm in 2017 ) Both Google and Microsoft are busy expanding their Cloud business. All while Apple is slowly squeezing all the money out of all online Ads as an industry ( cross site, targeted or not ). Moving the most lucrative user ( iPhone user ) away from Ads and web to Apps. Collecting more Raw Profits Per User with Google Default Search Engine. i.e Apple is increasing the cost of Google doing online business while taking away their revenue generating opportunity. This is a double squeeze. And using iPhone, iPad as leverage to slowly move Fortune 500 Enterprise towards using Mac. It actually isn't as far fetch as people may think when Java and Office works perfectly on Mac M1. But Apple isn't perfect. It has its own Achilles heel. App Store Revenue, Google Default Search Engine, and Monopolistic behaviour. Today, the iPhone has 66% market share in the United States, 75% of U.S. App Store revenues, and over 80% of time spent on the mobile internet. If Zuckerberg plays his cards right, aiming at the first two item alone is close to 50% of Apple's Net Profit. And he doesn't even have to do it himself or using Facebook to do it. He just have to fund it.
- beardyw 6y agoI was surprised that they have 66% share in US since they have only about 11% worldwide. That means the average outside the US must be well below 11%.
- mola 6y agoPsycopaths everywhere
- balls187 6y agoIt makes you wonder why Zuckerberg is bothered by additional privacy controls?
- bugs_bunny 6y agoNoob here. Is FB really the powerhouse it is thought to be in terms of active users? In the iPhone app store there are 712K reviews, while TikTok has 8M and Instagram has 20M. I know that these are ratings, but you would think there would be some (rough) proportionality with their usage.
- mdoms 6y ago"Facebook" isn't just Facebook. Even one of your examples of more widely-used apps is Facebook.
- rbinv 6y agoReminds me of Jobs wanting to "go thermonuclear" on Google, which Apple's aggressive pro-privacy stance kind of does.
- chewz 6y agoIf Facebook has any impactful reach then convincing people that they don’t need Apple products should be a piece of cake. And that could hurt Apple. Otherwise FB impact amounts to nothing and the company has zero worth.
- midrus 6y agoThanks to this standing against facebook, my next phone is going to be an iPhone