Charlie Rose

le_bear  11/18/2011 11:35 PM Report

I very much appreciate your interviews, and watch them often. I especially appreciate the ones with world leaders. I can see you at ten pm, one am, and noon the next day. Reruns are no problem with your shows, I can watch them endlessly. The one with Mark was a rare exception, once was enough, and I actually found myself for the first time, turning off the show. Not your fault though Charlie, your show was as informative as ever, but just this once, once was enough.

I thank you for that as well, to finally see the founder of this website up close, and realize there isn't much there. I only have one question for Mark, is there ANYTHING on your site that actually WORKS ?? After two years of using it, the time spent waiting, and wishing, pages would load without errors so far exceeds the time spent productively that it only leaves me wishing I'd spent more of it elsewhere.

orlyZ  11/15/2011 06:14 PM Report

I wish the questions were more up to date and interesting and that the woman (sorry I forgot her name) would not sound so subservient. One question i'd ask is why does FB keep fixing what is not broken? Are they aware its the new features that drive people away? Plus-it feels like Marc has got one foot in the door another world/dimension kind of, and i am sorry to say, Mr. Rose, you didn't join him there.

Dusibello  11/13/2011 12:20 PM Report

After a half-dozen I stopped counting how many times CR talked over their answers to his questions... And someone tell CR that taking off your tie to look casual in a business suit is weird...

dnelnelson  11/11/2011 05:16 PM Report

It's not "how can we get people to tell us stuff about themselves", it's "how can we get them to want to tell us stuff about themselves".

SharkswithfrikingLazers  11/10/2011 09:58 PM Report

We all have egos and a drive for recognition. FaceBook feeds this. Imagine if you go to a Mega university or a 5A high school. You are made to feel like a number. FaceBook helps overcome this herd feeling.

Let us please remember that just eight years ago Mark was up on charges for mashing faces and violating privacy:

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2003/11/19/facemash-creator-survives-ad-board-the/

Same thing, different day.

bobstevens  11/10/2011 03:51 PM Report

facebook's mission is to make the world more open? then why is facebook a closed system?

winter  11/10/2011 09:01 AM Report

Facebook, just another jar within the internet jar thats keeps our hornets angers and frustrations from getting out into the real world. like Occupy Wall Street it doing.

Twickit  11/10/2011 05:47 AM Report

Facebook is a means of creating identity in the virtual age. What would Nietzsche have said to this new religion?

Check out the wonderful thoughts in the comment of ShalomFreedman :

"Perhaps an important part of human life is inventing new activities to 'waste time' with, activities which we ourselves think of as important and useful."

Spot on. Facebook is simply a new way of watching television - only it is ourselves that we watch.

sachi  11/10/2011 01:45 AM Report

I don't understand why Charlie does not challenge the repeated characterization of Facebook's mission by Zuckerberg as being no more than "a way for people to connect with people they care about:" Facebook has become the equivalent of a cacophony of self-promotions by companies and individuals who do not care in any meaningful sense for the majority of their listed "friends" - promotions to thousands of people they barely know and in many cases, don't know. In other words, why did Charlie accept this folksy characterization and stay mute on the mass leveraging of Facebook networks for consumer and business ADVERTISING AND MARKETING?

SharkswithfrikingLazers  11/09/2011 07:35 PM Report

Charlie, Mark mentioned Friendster and MySpace. You might have asked about these. Friendster has 115 million users and is big in Asia. They reinvented themselves and relaunched in June.

MySpace, on the other hand, is falling, falling way, way down.

Mark says privacy separates FaceBook from these two but I don't buy that answer. If it is on the internet it is public no matter what "privacy" settings are touted. The real issue is not privacy but does anybody care enough to get what you consider private.

Looks like a subject (comparison of the three) for one of the many management gurus who want to get on your show.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  11/09/2011 07:19 PM Report

Charlie, on several episodes you have mentioned four platforms:

Amazon

Apple

FaceBook

Google

From where I sit Amazon and Google are on their own level because they cross over so well. I use Google/YouTube like I use a computer keyboard.

Amazon helps on so many levels even finding books in the library and reviews of products.

I don't need Apple--I can get less expensive, very similar offerings from other companies and I do.

I don't need FaceBook because I don't need to know what my friends and family are having for dinner or other mundane, banal, trite, ridiculous and inane stuff. I don't need to show off and I don't need to judge others lives. Now to be fair FaceBook is expanding and even the local community college offers courses on how to get your small business a FaceBook page. Still this is worlds away from Amazon.

So four platforms? Not quite.

chawlynose  11/09/2011 04:39 PM Report

I'm sure, the greatest invention since the wheel, the automobile, and air-conditioning; but Not sliced bread. Make no mistakes, and exacly in that order.

So that's my 2 cents; now, on to the interview. Hopefuuly it's a short one, as I can't imagine this little junior has much interesting to say, even though he's a havard graduate. I just think the whole 'Facebook' thing is over-rated.

If you want to be, 'you', what's wrong with just email.?. Everything else, it's just easier and funner to be anonomous. You can be more honest and not have to deal with being misunderstood and all the politics that goes along with that. You'll never really learn or be more than just street-smart if your whole everything is all politics.

jmldrwsr  11/09/2011 02:18 PM Report

This was a great interview and i thank Mr. Rose and Mr. Zuckerberg and Ms. Sandberg for there insights and i look forward to more years of interaction with this faboulous service.

Informationage  11/09/2011 03:41 AM Report

Hi Mark & Sheryl

Building social infrastructure in the information age is history in the making.. you are both part leading it.. It's a great responsibilty, Thank u :)

human evolution..the next step

ks

Ps Thank you Charlie..live once as we know it, you are part of globalization history

SharkswithfrikingLazers  11/09/2011 02:29 AM Report

Yes on Mark's comment about YouTube--indeed a great evolution.

I LOVE YouTube right after Google. YouTube has taught me an incredible amount and made my life much, much better.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  11/09/2011 02:25 AM Report

Charlie, you sure were laughing off camera. What was Mark doing when Sheryl was asked to compare Google and FaceBook?

You were laughing quite a bit, Mark was not seen and Sheryl seemed to be squirming.

It was a great question and probably worth one or two more questions to follow-up . . . but you played it safe.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  11/09/2011 02:19 AM Report

Yes “Stapling” a visa to the diploma.

Who does not agree with this?

Seems like a no-brainer and should be done now.

While you are at it, include a low-interest loan on a house that is part of the excess housing inventory Warren Buffet wants to clear out and get them paying FICA right away.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  11/09/2011 02:14 AM Report

The real self Mark?

Yes what is this?

How indeed does one need the real self to be on FaceBook?

SharkswithfrikingLazers  11/09/2011 02:12 AM Report

I tend to agree with Aaron.

FaceBook is to Social Networking as reality is to Reality TV.

At the end:

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/360641/september-30-2010/aaron-sorkin

Ricardo_Amaral  11/08/2011 10:13 PM Report

"According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, America's internet speed ranks 29th out of its 34 members.

At 16,000 kilobits per second, even the unhappy people of Greece – Greece! - receive their internet faster than Americans (14,600)... “

Reality check: The USA is behind even Greece regarding internet broadband high speed technology.

.

ShalomFreedman  11/08/2011 10:05 PM Report

I still do not really understand 'Facebook' and its global appeal. The whole business of connecting with others and sharing with them much of what one does, seems to me odd and strange. The idea that we make better decisions when we consult our friends too seems to me odd and strange, although I understand how it can in certain things make sense i.e. buying a dishwasher etc.( Of course the greatest part of all great creative work historically has been done by individuals working alone) I find the wholehearted favoring of the idea of 'openness' too strange, though both Zuckerberg and Samberg explained to some degree their protection of privacy, and the discretion the user has in deciding what they wish to let others know. They also make sense when they talk about providing the users the control to decide which kinds of information they wish to share with which groups of people. This sounds much like what we do in ordinary life , anyway. We tell one group of people one kind of thing, and another, another.

I am somehow amazed that in seven years a company like 'Facebook' could become so central to the world's idea of what it is doing with itself. This too seems to me odd. Perhaps I am a fossil but I find the enthusiasm with 'openness' and ' growing in number of users' and 'enabling social interaction' strange. As I said I feel a fossil who just does not 'get it'. I wonder too if the 'Internet' as it is now does not allow or enable precisely most of what 'Facebook' does.

I would commend Zuckerberg for not taking credit for Charlie Rose's beloved 'Arab spring' which does not seem very spring- y at the moment. And this when the 'do- good message' Zuckerberg and Samberg sell again leaves me skeptical.

Perhaps an important part of human life is inventing new activities to 'waste time' with, activities which we ourselves think of as important and useful. There is no doubt much such invention on 'Facebook' and on the Internet in general.

But I suppose if posting on one's 'Wall' and 'reading what's on ones 'Wall' makes people happy this is of in itself of value. I simply have not learned to get great joy from this yet.

Ricardo_Amaral  11/08/2011 10:02 PM Report

I did watch the Charlie Rose Show for about 5 minutes when they were talking about how foreigners come to the US to get their advanced degrees, and they were complaining that the US government does not make an effort to keep this human capital here in the US instead of letting them return to their country of origin.

What these people have not grasped as yet is that many of these countries where broadband speed is much faster than in the United States – these are the countries that will create the innovations of tomorrow.

The human capital will move to the places where they have the state-of-the art in high speed broadband technology and they will stay away from countries such as the USA and its obsolete broadband technology – and the world of yesterday....

*****

America’s Bridge to Nirvana

By: Edward Luce

Financial Times (UK) – November 7, 2011

Edward Luce writes in the Financial Times about another truth that Americans should know about (America’s Bridge to Nirvana). Luce says America’s infrastructure is “fast descending to second world status.” That is because we spend only 2 % of GDP on infrastructure. Europe spends twice as much, and China four times as much.

What upsets Luce is that Congress has just blocked a $60 billion bill to upgrade infrastructure. It is not surprising Congress’ approval rating is now down to 9%, says Luce.

Luce also mentioned on his article: “Or take America's sluggish broadband. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, America's internet speed ranks 29th out of its 34 members. Some countries, such as France, Japan, and Sweden, offer average speeds more than four times greater than this found in the US. At 16,000 kilobits per second, even the unhappy people of Greece – Greece! - receive their internet faster than Americans (14,600)... “

.

JohnGelles  11/08/2011 07:24 PM Report

Alone on a deserted island, a thousand miles from another human being, you have an internet interactive terminal. What do YOU want to do?

Suicide is NOT an option.

If and when you can answer this, tell us ho Face Book can help us all succeed at living before we die.

narendersangwan  11/08/2011 03:55 PM Report

after microsoft its a gift in globalising world when individuals are able to connect meaningfully and exchange views,music,share things of interest.

winter  11/08/2011 01:26 PM Report

When I was in high school in the sixties we had a thing called "slang books". They were a steno pad that solicitied information like what your favorite food was, teacher etc. You signed in your name at first and they were passed around all day. The questions filled an entire steno pad, not alot different than what Facebook traffics in, kiddie banter and distractions from more important things, which might be just about anything. This is what America's come to, replacing actually making things since for that we pay a bag of rice a day and managers keep the difference. Shows you can be enterprising, rich and still be a goofball.

Ellen_Dibble  11/08/2011 01:13 PM Report

REMant, are you by any chance a male? You are shedding suggestions of such personal information in your wake. Facebook's roots were at the level of enabling contacts among co-eds, a group to some extent preselected by admissions boards, but also predefined by the time of life when individuals are (a) sorting out their own identities and (b) searching for like interests, and people to "like" in general. So Facebook seems great for countries with populations that are very young, especially where there are particular interests that people can usefully congeal around. But I notice that many, many Facebook pages block me from their content, and the flip side of being blocked is being inundated, and/or having to sort of garden that site, making it reflective of something you choose. I don't buy into the idea that people in general want others to know what they like, all that, especially when that information can be lifted and taken elsewhere, not by your kid sister whom you can corner in the hall and lambaste about the leak, but by anyone with a computer link to someone who knew someone who knew someone. There was one question I wanted asked, more about google-plus than Facebook, but both. The computer keeps tossing in "Friends" or others on google (for the google-plus stream) as possible people to link to. I'm wondering if those people have been checking out my sites; why does person X get offered at least every day, whereas another (from the same shared friend with a list of 4,000 friends) will only get offered to me once? I want to say, I see you listening outside my door; knock or go away. But I think the "offer" is the knock. I think it says Kilroy was here, more or less. This is shaking up my identity somewhat; the people who seem to be interested in me -- WELL. Maybe I should lurk on them right back. Any suggestions?

Harryj  11/08/2011 01:04 PM Report

The people on facebook are not people who want to share. They are people who are seeking to, or yearning to climb the social hierachy (seeking status) using relations or recreating their self image. One of the major flaws of this service is not creating social hieracrhies, and untill those are created you wont be able to leverage its capabilties in marketing. Celebrated figures are a key to hierarchal social systems,,,blah blah blah. But if you put social hierarchies out in the open..unmasked people get turned off...the conundrum of facebook.

REMant  11/08/2011 10:53 AM Report

The number of Facebook users seems to me inconsequential in comparison with the number of Internet users overall, estimated to be about 2 billion http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm And, personally, I doubt almost half of all Internet users have Facebook accounts http://www.internetworldstats.com/facebook.htm Or use them regularly. I have an account I haven't used for almost a year. A lot of ppl use them nowadays to sign-in to forums, etc, which require identification. And for many it is simply a free website and blog. The question isn't how many accounts Facebook has, but how many of them are, functionally remunerative. What it might sell for is irrelevant to any honest investor. And the number of Internet users must pale before the number of telephone users and TV watchers.

But I don't think connecting individuals is it greatest potential value. It could actually replace the Internet, which is still essentially a big bulletin board, with an interactive model - not that I'd approve of the monopoly - because it is able to provide a difficult-to-get audience for websites. For instance a department store would love to have people informed about its products, and may use ads, or get ppl to sign-up for emails, use RSS, etc, but if they operated directly out of Facebook, they would have a ready-made network with growth potential. The same for a newspaper and a large number of other operations.

I think, however, it would be unwise for Facebook to delve unduly into personal information or even provide a platform for that as Zuckerberg seems to be continually coming back to. I really doubt sharing, likes and dislikes, and so forth, is as important as the network per se. Indeed I think it gets in the way. It may be that it is requisite to get ppl on board. But because of the privacy concern it gets in the way of the networking. Thus many people would I think rather hang around on local website forums writing reviews and comments. But there is no way I'm going to sign-in to these things with my Facebook account.

From my prior experience, I'd say the organization of the thing is pretty poor, right down there with some of the worst programs and web designs I've ever seen, and the options were extremely difficult to understand and deal with. That's in part why I haven't visited my page for a long time.

BTW, I think women are at least as ambitious as men; they just aren't as good managers and scientists, and that most likely their ambition works against their advancement in an environment that values the latter more. It a word I think women are inherently selfish. In two words: selfish and bossy.