a thoughtful web.
Share good ideas and conversation.   Login or Take a Tour!
comment by kleinbl00
kleinbl00  ·  68 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: The day Facebook was diagnosed with Stage 4 terminal cancer

    They have created an ecosystem - and a brand - that just works, works well for 90% of the people, and does so in an elegant and distinctly "futuristic" way.

This is inaccurate. Apple's business model is to sell things to people who buy products and services from them. It's no different than Microsoft's. Really, if you want to know why Skype sucks so hard it's because Microsoft doesn't really know how to monetize something they aren't billing users for. Frankly, the business model of most... businesses has been "I sell things to people who use them" since the dawn of capitalism. The aberration is advertising, and the Internet sucks for advertising.

    Facebook does not have a good business plan. It has a business plan that was hastily taped onto the back of a running cheetah, and the cheetah doesn't care about the business plan.

This is also inaccurate. Facebook's business plan is to sell its users to advertisers. So's Google's - Tim Cook was probably referencing Facebook (that "social dilemma becomes a social catastrophe" bit is too on-the-nose by half) but his description of engagement at all costs and radicalization could just as easily point at Youtube. For what it's worth, when you're one of Google's or Facebook's customers your experience is very different than when you're a member of Facebook or Google's aggregate sales. You got a problem with a Facebook ad? There's someone who will fix it for you within the hour. Your Google Adwords gone awry? There's a chat line for you. I use GSuite for my personal email and I have a couple services running on Google Cloud. If money is going from your wallet to Google or Facebook they treat you like a customer. But if there's no money link from you to Google or Facebook you are not a customer.

So much of this upset over Google and Facebook is sheep bleating about being fleeced. Google and Facebook don't care, shouldn't be expected to care, and cannot be compelled to care - by the sheep, anyway. every privacy advocate out there has been saying "if it's free, you aren't the customer you're the product" since Netscape, FFS. They've also been saying that nothing short of a cataclysm will change anything. You'd think Cambridge Analytica would have done it. Instead we were all too busy arguing about terrorist brown people, no doubt because Facebook's board is 99% conservative assholes.

Here's the dumb thing: Facebook's future is fundamentally tied to Libra. They know advertising is fucked because they're creating an online tower of Babel where nobody's microcommunity talks to anyone else and they don't have the scalability to keep your product from being advertised to white nationalist pedophiles. They also know that their money traffic is moving from Facebook to WhatsApp, where they can't really advertise. So they altered their terms of service to tie your Whatsapp conversations into their ad network and everyone lost their shit. So they put out ads saying "apple is mean" and Apple politely told them to eat a dick.

Because fundamentally? Facebook needed to pivot from "our advertisers are our customers" to "our users are our customers" and because they got hammered by their shareholders when they rolled out Instagram Stories, they couldn't. so now The Squad has a cryptocurrency bill that basically says "get fucked, Libra" and India has a cryptocurrency bill that basically says "get fucked, Libra" and there is no one - no one - who has any trust for anything Facebook has done for the past five years and you know what?

Tim Cook is testing the waters.





goobster  ·  67 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    "Facebook does not have a good business plan. It has a business plan that was hastily taped onto the back of a running cheetah, and the cheetah doesn't care about the business plan.

    This is also inaccurate. Facebook's business plan is to sell its users to advertisers.

Facebook was built as a way to creep on girls. No monetization policy at all. It was only AFTER other websites moved to ad-based selling of their viewers' data that FB hastily pasted that capability on the top of the Feed. Ever since the platform has been rebuilt to support that mission, but that's not what it was designed to do.

From Day 1, Apple was designed and built to sell a premium product to a limited audience that appreciated those premium features, and - with one brief dark period under John Sculley's leadership - has Apple ever deviated from selling a premium product to people who will pay top dollar for quality/experience.

In my view of the world, your DNA matters. FB's DNA is fundamentally flawed and disrespectful of their users. Apple's DNA is to sell the best experience possible at a premium price.

One of these houses is built of straw and one of brick. The little piggies are squealing and the Big Bad Wolf is coming...

kleinbl00  ·  67 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    Facebook was built as a way to creep on girls. No monetization policy at all.

That's a monetization policy. You sell the girls. Without Facebook? I can sell to this IP address with those cookies. With Facebook? I can sell to teenagers who like Nelly Furtado that browse Amazon on Tuesday evenings that live within a mile of an arbitrary lat/long combo. The tricky part is getting the girls: so you build a place for them to talk about their love of Nelly Furtado.

You can pretend that somehow they were never thinking about money but they've been selling their users since the very beginning.

    From Day 1, Apple was designed and built to sell a premium product to a limited audience that appreciated those premium features

Apple Macintosh MSRP, January 1984: $2495

IBM PC AT MSRP, August 1984: $6000

Yeah, a Mac cost more than a Commodore 64. But "from Day 1" Apple positioned themselves as the underdog. This was the case until the Powerbook G4, part of Steve Jobs' return from the wilderness, and a reflection of his adventures with NeXT, which actually was positioned as a premium product. Jobs wouldn't have been allowed to do it without Scully's clones, for sure, but Apple's market has always been prosumer: it's not an ugly tool like you would drag home from work but it's hella cooler than some crap you'd buy at Walmart.

Apple sells to the people using its product. Facebook and Google sell to the companies using the people that use their product. No need to fanboi the shit; Apple can do more user-centric shit because their users are their customers. Facebook and Google can't because the better you treat the sheep the less wool and mutton you can extract from them.