What Elon Musk got wrong about advertisers
What Elon Musk got wrong about advertisers
In a defiant interview, Musk seems to have missed the most important point.
In a wild and wide-ranging interview at The New York Times DealBook Summit with Andrew Ross Sorkin, Elon Musk addressed the controversy over his recent posts that have been interpreted as antisemitic. "Of all the posts I've done on the platform--there might be 30,000--once in a while, I might say something foolish," Musk said. "I'm sorry for that tweet or post, it was foolish of me."
Musk was referring to his reply to a message that spread an anti-Jewish conspiracy theory. The post generated immense pushback, including from advertisers, which have fled the platform. It's unclear whether his apology will change the minds of any of his advertisers, which seem to have largely decided that the reputational risk of advertising on X just isn't worth the potential return.
When asked about the effect this has had on X, the company formerly known as Twitter, Musk's response was defiant.
"If someone's going to try to blackmail me with advertising, blackmail me with money, go f--- yourself," said Musk. "Including Bob," he added, referring to Disney CEO Bob Iger who was onstage earlier during the event. When Ross Sorkin attempted to follow up, Musk doubled down, repeating again, "Go f--- yourself."
Sign up before Dec. 10 and save 20% off an annual subscription
Musk went on to claim that advertisers are going to kill the company. Ross Sorkin attempted to push back, claiming that advertisers might argue that it was Musk's decisions and public actions that could kill the company. Musk disagreed, and suggested that "Earth will be the judge."
The interview went a lot of places, including a tangent about whether there are really aliens. Despite all of it, there was a powerful lesson best illustrated by a follow-up by Ross Sorkin.
"You're saying I don't care if anyone likes me or they hate me," Ross Sorkin responded. "But given your power, and given what you have amassed, and your importance you have, I would think you want to be trusted."
Musk suggested that being trusted personally is irrelevant if the rockets made by SpaceX are the most reliable in the world, or if the cars made by Tesla are the best in the world. The thing is, I don't think that's true. I think Musk greatly underestimates the long-term importance of being trusted.
Sure, Musk has been incredibly successful despite his personal flaws and drawbacks.
As the interview neared its conclusion, Musk talked about the importance of humans becoming a multiplanet species, meaning, in his view, that the survival of the human race depends on our ability to eventually colonize other planets. It certainly seems like trust is a pretty valuable asset if the thing you're trying to do is convince people that they should get on a rocket ship and leave Earth.
In fact, that might be the most important lesson of all, and the one Musk doesn't seem to understand. For all of his success, there are growing numbers of people who simply don't trust him. So far, that hasn't seemed to be a barrier to making cars or launching rockets. It's true that his companies have been not only successful, but transformational in their industries. Make whatever argument you want about Musk, but Tesla is the most successful car company of the past decade, and it has influenced every electric vehicle made during that time.
It's becoming clear that Musk's tremendous business achievements come at a cost, however. I don't know how to measure that cost, but I'm sure that at some point, Musk will discover it. The only question will be how many more of his companies fail by that point. That would be the most brutal lesson of all.
Apple’s NameDrop Problem
Every once in a while, a bunch of people get worked up over some tech-related product or feature because it sounds like it might be very bad. This happens when the collective awareness of some new technology or feature reaches a tipping point, usually because someone with a large audience says a thing that sounds really bad, whether it's true or not.
Sometimes, the people sharing this are government, or law enforcement officials. When that happens, everyone else just assumes it must be both bad and true. In this case, a handful of police departments across the country have started warning parents that a new iPhone feature, released with iOS 17, is putting their children at risk.
The feature is NameDrop, which allows you to easily share your contact information with another iPhone user, just by bringing your devices close and pointing them at each other. Honestly, it's one of the best new features of iOS 17, even if it's just a copy of a feature that already existed in third-party apps 10 years ago.
The problem here is that it's pretty clear that, while the people who are spreading this information are police officers, they lack a real understanding of the feature. NameDrop isn't even new--iOS 17 has been out since September. For some reason, it's just taking off now. It's as though someone at Thanksgiving dinner told them about a thing they heard online, and now it's become a big deal.
Yes, it's true that iOS 17 includes the NameDrop feature. It's also true that it's on by default. Neither of those things should be especially concerning. I guess you could argue Apple shouldn't enable new features by default, but the fact that it is on doesn't put anyone at any more risk.
Plus, it's easy to turn the feature off. So, if you're worried about someone stealing your child's information (or your own, for that matter), you could change the setting. Just go to Settings > General > AirDrop and toggle off the switch for "Bring Devices Together."
More important, however, the feature doesn't actually let someone steal your information. You see, even when enabled, the NameDrop feature works only if you have the setting turned on, have both iPhones unlocked, and have them less than an inch apart. Then, you're given the option of choosing what information to share, or whether to share any information at all.
A lot has to happen there before any personal information is shared, and the biggest factor is that you have to be in extremely close proximity and actively engage in a NameDrop session. No one can trigger sharing your contact information just because they sat near you in a cafe or on a bus.
Supposedly, the worry is that children will be coerced or persuaded to share their contact information using the new feature, though it seems easier to just ask them to tell you their phone number. And, if you're worried that your child is susceptible to being coerced into NameDropping their contact information to a stranger, I might suggest that there are several boundary-related things you might want to do. For example, maybe remind your children of what parents have been saying for a thousand years: Don't talk to strangers.
Ultimately, the lesson here is that people will always make a big deal out of things they don't fully understand. That's why it's up to you to take the time to know what's happening with your devices and make the right choice for your family. Also, don't spread information just because it sounds scary and possibly true.
Finally, Apple could have avoided all of this by simply letting people opt into using the feature instead of having it on by default. I get why they made the decision they did--more people will certainly use a feature if it just automatically works. On the other hand, giving people the choice of whether to use a feature respects their preferences and builds trust. That's really the point here: Trust, it turns out, may be your most valuable asset of all.
Other Stories You Might Like:
How Satya Nadella pulled off a masterclass in leading through a crisis.
The CyberTruck is here. (The Verge)
Inside Apple’s chip lab. (CNBC)
Montana’s TikTok ban gets blocked. (Engadget)
Everything AWS announced at re:Invent. (TechCrunch)