With Apple, I'm the customer, not a marketer. This makes me comfortable with our relationship. I don't really care about Ping or app store approval policies, so, meh...<p>With Google, I can see their ability to become a shady company pretty easily, but it is just too damn easy to switch search engines. Bing isn't so bad you know.<p>But Facebook knows so much about me, and the network effects are so strong -- this is the company I feel most unpleasantly stuck to. Not "Comcast stuck" mind you, but still, more "stuck" than I'd like. It's like my friends keep having parties at a bar I'm not super fond of... and I keep going.
Marco, Gruber, MG have their own BS :<p><pre><code> *Android is NOT open
</code></pre>
It gets stated as absolute fact only by Apple and its hardcore followers (Steve Jobs said Windows is open not Android first, DF, MG and MA have been religiously snarking out on any chance to declare Android not open.)<p>It is BS because all 3 of them do this only to promote what they subscribe to - i.e. they have no consequence from Android not being open (they use and promote iOS which is epitome of closed which in turn means they don't really care about open - they only care about pointing it out in an attempt to nullify the claimed Android advantage against iOS - hey it's not really open anyways, so get in on our team. Which to me is a obnoxious or even a little evil, cotradictory and self-promoting reason to complain about not being open.)
> Facebook: "Our users want to interact with brands."<p>As distasteful as the hacker crowd may find it, this is probably a true statement.<p>A significant number of people (in the developed world) really do construct a large part of their personal identity by buying branded products from companies in order to signal something about themselves.<p>There's a section on this on the Wikipedia page for "Brand":<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brand#Attitude_branding_and_iconic_brands" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brand#Attitude_branding_and_ico...</a>
When I think of something being "bullshit", I think it is totally false. But many of these points are part-truths, not complete falsehoods.<p>For example, Google tracks lots of personal data to make their products better. So the sentence "We solicit all of your personal information and track everything you do to make things better for you" is partially true. Of course, something is in it for Google too. When they add new features to a product driven by personal data mining, they seek to grow market share. They also use your personal data to target ads at you better. And they may be using it for further research projects that you don't know about.<p>But the statement has a lot of truth to it. That's not the normal definition of "bullshit".
You forgot the biggest bullshit of all, Marco.<p>Hacker News users:<p>I'm so mad that the government is doing <xyz>!<p>I'm so mad that big business is doing <xyz>!<p>I'm so mad that venture capitalists are doing <xyz>!<p>I'm so mad that angel investors are doing <xyz>!<p>I'm so mad that <xyz> got funding!<p>I'm so mad that language <abc> doesn't do <xyz>!<p>I'm so mad that I can't jailbreak <xyz>!<p>I'm so mad that I'm actually expected to pay for <xyz>!<p>I'm so mad that more people don't visit my blog!<p>I'm so mad that so many people visit blog <xyz>!<p>I'm so mad that person <xyz> is a jerk!<p>So what did you build today?<p>Nothing. I can't focus.
There was a very good talk at 28c3 that should remember everyone, that Apple and Google are not working for the public interest (as some fans still believe)<p>Partly NSFW:<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh07lA9EmIc" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh07lA9EmIc</a><p>or:<p><a href="http://ondemand.28c3.fem-net.de/events/4676.html" rel="nofollow">http://ondemand.28c3.fem-net.de/events/4676.html</a>
I always, always, always find what I want from Google. So whatever they are doing is, in some way, for my benefit.<p>And even if I was ready to pay for every website/service I use (which I'm not), ads are not going away. So when they do whatever they are doing to show me better ads I'd say that's on my benefit too.<p>I'm not a Google unconditional fan (I hate Android, love iOS) and certainly they can do better. But implying they don't benefit the end user is what I find bullshit-y.<p>And I think that's a very poorly written article, btw. Marco can do a lot better.
I know this guy is one of the HN celebrity set, but can we please modify that title to something more meaningful?<p>Something like:<p>"Bullshit - what companies really mean?"
Deeply agree on that list.<p>But there are <i>some</i> o at least <i>one</i> company that I'd actually trust more than others, and support, and that's Mozilla. Because there's no share holders. Because it's owned by non-profit. And because their track record is perfect so far. Everything's open. All the development is in the open, not just the code.<p>Everything's made for our best interest actually.
Does Apple actually claim that their app review process is in _everyone's_ best interests, or just their customers (which is frequently at 180-degree odds with sketchy devs)?
Apple's bullshit is strictly business. Google's and Facebook's bullshits affects peoples privacy, and, if they live in a country that values privacy, actually violates their fundamental rights.<p>Facebook and Google are engaged in open warfare against social values and legal restrictions that are prevalent in most of the world (especially outside the US), and the lies they tell about it can not simply be categorized as "bullshit" you can decide to tolerate on a individual basis.
Just wondering, why are we valuing this blog post that talks about a first world problem and brings no solution or anything critic or productive? Are we biased against Marco.org?
Yes, it's true the things listed are bullshit. Yes, I guess we can take it or leave it.<p>Sometimes the "take it or leave it" position ends up being presented in a way that it is framed that those of us who choose not to partake in the rape of our liberties are backwards luddites (non-facebook member here, also got their domains blocked to kill their insidious tracking). I hope that criticism of those who say "no" is not where this article series (if that's what it is) is headed.
Quite disingenuous to state that "Android is open" is bullshit and at the same time
the article finds no mention of Apple's overarching "closed is better for you" attitude.<p>(Yes, the article hints at Apple's closed-ness. However, only relatively minor, disconnected,
issues. Not the overall attitude.)
Only one I really take issue with is:<p>> Nobody wants a [popular new product category that Apple doesn’t make yet].<p>To be honest, when you hear that from an executive at Apple, I believe they are being sincere. You have to understand that Apple does not think of the iPhone as "a cell phone that plays music" or the iPad as "a tablet computer" or the MacBook Air as "a netbook". Yes, this is parsing things rather finely, but if you think that doing so is somehow irrelevant, then I would assert that you don't understand Apple and the way they do things.
"Bullshit" is a lack of concern over whether what you've said was true or not.<p>"We’re not tracking you when you’re logged out" was a straight up lie.
You'd be surprised at the number of people who use Twitter for the sole purpose of following their favorite chelebrities, ergo interacting with brands. I'm going to put my toe in the water and assume the same applies to Facebook.
Remember back in the 70's and 80's before cable TV? We only had channels 3,6, and 7. We loved TV but couldn't stand the commercials every 5 minutes. The internet has turned into one big TV commercial. Websites are now 10% content and 90% ads. It is so sad that we let this get out of control. Don't get me started on social networking and how they exist to be the big TV commercial to make boatloads of cash.