This and and other thing like Zuckerberg’s desire to integrate facial recognition into Meta’s Ray-ban glasses puts him in squarely in the lead for world’s creepiest human.
Meta seems to be completely tone-deaf when it comes to products and features. I wonder if this is a function of a single person, surrounded by people with little incentive to disagree, having all the decision making power in a company.
I guess it's obvious, but haven't really thought about this. Back in the day we had media companies and advertisers. Magazine publishers/newspapers/TV Studios on the one hand and the Leo Burnetts/Ogilvy/Wieden+Kennedy on the other. There was always a tension between what advertisers wanted and what creatives wanted. The studio/publishers knew that bowing completely to advertisers was a fast track to making crap and the advertisers knew they needed to remind the publishers that they are only as good as their audiences.
With Meta we these have more or less merged. It's not really clear now who the customer is. They need to attract both eyeballs and money. I'm not sure what the long-term consequence of that is, but my hunch is it leads to accounting and advertising winning since they actually generate money. And the result is junk creative.
Any best on if they will just re-release this under the radar once the press attention dies down? Zuck isn't spending billions to just not release this stuff.
This and and other thing like Zuckerberg’s desire to integrate facial recognition into Meta’s Ray-ban glasses puts him in squarely in the lead for world’s creepiest human.
https://www.wired.com/story/meta-smart-glasses-face-recognit...
Meta seems to be completely tone-deaf when it comes to products and features. I wonder if this is a function of a single person, surrounded by people with little incentive to disagree, having all the decision making power in a company.
They think like an Advesting company. They listen to their customers.
I guess it's obvious, but haven't really thought about this. Back in the day we had media companies and advertisers. Magazine publishers/newspapers/TV Studios on the one hand and the Leo Burnetts/Ogilvy/Wieden+Kennedy on the other. There was always a tension between what advertisers wanted and what creatives wanted. The studio/publishers knew that bowing completely to advertisers was a fast track to making crap and the advertisers knew they needed to remind the publishers that they are only as good as their audiences.
With Meta we these have more or less merged. It's not really clear now who the customer is. They need to attract both eyeballs and money. I'm not sure what the long-term consequence of that is, but my hunch is it leads to accounting and advertising winning since they actually generate money. And the result is junk creative.
The fish rots from the head. It’s Zuckerberg.
Any best on if they will just re-release this under the radar once the press attention dies down? Zuck isn't spending billions to just not release this stuff.
I mean the feature is "you can tag another users handle to base images on them", that doesn't seem like core functionality?
It would be if it suddenly became popular and they could show more ads to people for using it.
Good.