Posted Monday 10th March 2008 19:00 GMT
Ah cmon, Facebook will be forgotten in three years. The Google guys are pure evil, storing your every search, China an' all. Having that "Do no evil" motto - it's exactly what Satan's Spawn would do.
Posted Monday 10th March 2008 19:23 GMT
Bad research plus self interest equals crap interviews period !
The old saying know your subject before you open your big mouth stops many a foot from being tossed in !
Posted Monday 10th March 2008 19:45 GMT
The "interview" made with Zuckerberg was, frankly, terrible. The interviewer was more interested, as always, in showing how hot she is to Zuck than doing that mundane thing of asking stuff. Maybe it's the Total Venom Spew, but it became the Total Trainwreck Spew. Not that Zuck has anything to say...
(Unless, of course, you're Michael Arrington and prefer to blame the crowds because they were... a crowd.)
Paris because she'd make a better interview than Sarah "my leather boots turn on my audience" Lacy. Anonymous because it's funnier.
Posted Monday 10th March 2008 22:39 GMT
Lacy's big mistake was not knowing her audience. When your audience is intelligent, technical, and interested fluff interviewing doesn't cut it. From what I could tell (from seeing the video) Zuckberg's responses to questions asked by the audience were very good, but I also thought their questions were good. This seemed more like the kind of interview you'd expect if the audience were management, directors, or the general public. I would have been disappointed to pay to sit in this audience. The BOFH does not approve.
Posted Monday 10th March 2008 22:53 GMT
They've got their knives sharpened for her now that she dared say something bad about the "phone and internet communications device".
Posted Monday 10th March 2008 23:33 GMT
http://twitter.com/sarahcuda/statuses/769112518 (on an earlier Reg story about the bitch CEO of Facebook).
Sarah Lacy and Gawker. A match made in heaven. Who needs journalism, anyway?
Posted Tuesday 11th March 2008 09:06 GMT
Mark Zuckerberg means nothing. Facebook means nothing.
Bill was King Evil because he was the overlord of Microsoft, architect of pain for a million Windows and Office users, not some website for fannying about in your dinner hour.
Honestly, it's like comparing that thing out of Cloverfield with a mildly perturbed Yorkshire Terrier.
Posted Tuesday 11th March 2008 10:00 GMT
How can a skinny babyfaced ZuckerB compare to Steve "Put the chair down, son" Ballmer?
But indeed, it's not him, it's the people around His Bitchness that lose the plot. It's mind bending. Does that make him evil? I say we need a poll: "Mark ZeeBee: Sith or Jedi?".
Posted Tuesday 11th March 2008 15:27 GMT
"The old saying know your subject before you open your big mouth stops many a foot from being tossed in !"
Hello kettle? This is the pot here. You're black.
Posted Tuesday 11th March 2008 20:37 GMT
By the time many of us have got to grips with who this guy is he'll be unheard of.
Gates leaves us a lasting legacy.
Part of that legacy is Ballmer, for goodness sake. Google's made it; it's inside our brains already.
Zuk, err, Zuck... err.... Who?
Posted Tuesday 11th March 2008 20:37 GMT
Nice one, Ashlee - a fine mix of spleen and bile AND you got a plug in for your own book.
I don't agree we are suffering a shortage of villains, however. For a start, there's sweat-monster "I can dance" Ballmer. Not to mention fast-rising newcomer Kent Ertugrul whose rise up the slime scale has been meteoric.
You write: "...the public, however, refuses to grant Sergey Brin or Larry Page most hated status." Hey! Speak for yourself. I absolutely LOATHE those two bastards.
Posted Thursday 13th March 2008 10:30 GMT
The interview may have been poor, but it wasn't offensive, unlike Lacy's comments afterwards.
She pretended that Zuckerberg was equally upset by the episode, and as a result it was unlikely that the conference would attract a speaker of similar stature in future. She also claimed that the SXSW audience had the unrealistic expectation that Zuckerberg might actually talk about technology. It wasn't just unprofessional, it was an insult to the audience's intelligence.
Back to the article
