Small thought on Facebook

This one is off-topic so I'll keep it short.

I read another article this week that tried to explain how Facebook's influence on the 2016 election was overstated, and just a fixable side effect of Facebook's real, more innocent core business model.

Really?

Facebook is a platform that generates revenue by letting advertisers send targeted messages based on its users' personal information. Organisations pay Facebook money to influence its users into doing things the organisations hope will make their investments worthwhile.

The fact that domestic and foreign political interests want to tap into that power should not be a surprise to anyone. This is not a side-effect of the core business model - this IS the core business model.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Maybe 2018 will be the year UIKit replaces AppKit on the Mac

Image
At the 2007 iPhone launch, Steve Jobs proudly proclaimed "iPhone runs OS X" . In practice, iOS was relatively feature-limited and buttoned-down compared to macOS. It took Apple years to re-build the feature richness that macOS enjoyed in a modern and secure way for the mobile age. Successive iOS releases improved the situation, and especially the last 4 years iOS made big leaps forward. Between iOS 8 and 11 we got app extensions, split-screen multitasking, APFS, drag-and-drop and a Files app. Together these brought iOS almost to the level of productivity of macOS. People are now using iPads as primary work machines, which was unthinkable in 2012. This is great for the iOS ecosystem. As certain categories of pro users (writers for example) flock towards iOS, the market for pro apps grows. The app store thrives, and Pro apps like Ulysses, Scrivener, Pixelmator, Affinity have no trouble finding an audience of professionals paying good money. The ongoing debate around subs
Read more

Why losing some customers may be good for the Mac

There's been discussion  for  years  about Apple's vision for the Mac. The argument goes that iOS brings the majority of Apple's revenue, so the Mac plays second fiddle. Remember the  backlash  around the MacBook Pro  introduction, with its TouchBar with embedded iOS , causing Apple to insist that it really really still loves the Mac. Meanwhile, the iPad is maturing into a productivity device. iOS on iPad feels like a whole seperate OS . Because of this, whole segments of the Mac's typical target audience, such as students and writers, are finding themselves at home in iOS . While existing Mac users are likely to continue using their Macs for the time being, the influx of new users may slow down if iPad Pro sales are cannibalizing Mac sales. Is this bad for the Mac? Personally, I think not. I would like to offer the argument that when the Mac loses these "light productivity" customers to the iPad, the result will be a more homogeneous audience for the
Read more

The path for technology for the next decade? Here's 5 guesses.

Apple isn't known for being humble in its keynotes. It modestly grades its own products on a scale from "amazing", "phenomenal", and "magical" all the way up to "revolutionary" and "insanely great". Still, phrases like "setting the path for technology for the next decade" are reserved for big occasions. Steve Jobs used such expressions in his comeback period when talking about NeXTStep that became Rhapsody that become OS X. He called the PowerPC to Intel transition a "brain transplant" to "set Apple up for the next decade". And he used it in when introducing the iPhone ("5 years ahead of the competition"). But that's about it. "The next decade" remains an expression that hasn't been watered down yet by overuse. And when Apple does choose to use it, it's usually justified in hindsight. And still, The New Yorker called the iPhone X novelties  mundane . Forbes agreed wit
Read more