Is there something about running an Apple competitor that drives one insane? The circumstantial evidence suggesting it is certainly piling up.
Writing for our pals (disclaimer: not actually pals) at Business Insider, Caroline Moss:
"Mark Zuckerberg Slams Tim Cook:" (indirect link)
Wait. Wait. Please hold your side-splitting laughter until all the insanity has been revealed. Here's the slam part of the headline:
"You're Not In Alignment With Your Customers"
Yep. He said that.
Has Zuckerberg been taking crazy lessons from Eric Schmidt?
A frustration I have is that a lot of people increasingly seem to equate an advertising business model with somehow being out of alignment with your customers...
"People love our ads almost as much as they love our constant privacy setting changes! It's like a game!"
I think it's the most ridiculous concept.
NEWSFLASH: SILICON VALLEY EXECUTIVE HAS ABSURD, SELF-SERVING OPINION. MORE ON THIS LATE-BREAKING SITUATION AS IT DEVELOPS.
What, you think because you're paying Apple that you're somehow in alignment with them?
Actually, yes. At least more in alignment with them than your users, who are not really your customers. Your customers are advertisers.
Ask a ronin or a demonic sorcerer or someone who's worked in account management. They'll tell you that you can't serve two masters. Apple's got incredibly high customer satisfaction for a reason.
If you were in alignment with them, then they'd make their products a lot cheaper!
Apple products cost too much! We've all known this for years! What everyone would prefer is cheaper, ad-based iPhones! It's obvious isn't it? Put ads on the home screen of the iPhone, then add poking, zombies, a punch in the gut, steal their personal information for sale to the highest bidder, and then you'll be in alignment with customers. What could be more verifiably true?
So that's the nutty "nut" of Zuckerberg's argument. Now get ready as Business Insider plays a charming game of "optics over facts."
[Tim Cook's thesis] is that if you don't want to turn over your personal information to a company, then you should use Apple products.
This is a bit rich coming just months after the iCloud hacking scandal.
Right, because phishing attacks don't work on other platforms. Moss notes how the pictures were obtained but concludes:
Still, it's not good for Apple, especially if it wants to be seen as a steward of users' personal information.
Now, isn't it a reporter's job to tell people what the facts are instead of simply accepting their misperceptions?
Ohhh, Macalope. How lovably naïve and furry you are.
As for Zuckerberg's counterpoint, it makes sense.
NEWSFLASH: WRITER FOR AD-BASED LINKBAIT FARM AGREES WITH SELF-SERVING SILICON VALLEY EXECUTIVE.
Consumers have repeatedly shown that they are willing to give up a little privacy for a great, free product.
You know what else they've done? Shown they're willing to give up a little money to get an iPhone.
People don't mind ad-supported products.
Don't mind or love more than life itself? There must be a reason why everyone is exclusively using smartphones with Facebook Home, right?
Further, the average iPhone costs over $600, while the average Android phone costs half that.
Why? NO REASON.
After all, Apple has $150 billion in cash on hand. It is the most profitable technology company in the world. It can afford to lower prices.
Sure! Why, if Apple were a charitable organization run by volunteers, imagine how cheap the iPhone would be then!
Hey, Facebook made a pretty nice profit last quarter. What if maybe they showed fewer ads? Better yet, what's Business Insider's profit? Maybe you guys could write a little less link-baiting claptrap. That'd be good, as long as we're all just giving away profits for no reason.