Renowned business professor Scott Galloway’s irreverent style may exaggerate the monstrous intentions of Google, Amazon, Facebook and Apple, but he has sufficient credibility to cause you to wonder uncomfortably what the “Four Horsemen” might do with the information they’ve gleaned from your last post, purchase or search. As he has in his popular videos, which are somewhat recycled here, Galloway warns that Facebook might destroy civilization – an intriguing insight in light of the Cambridge Analytica scandal. Yet even if he makes somewhat too strong a case for the bad these firms do over the good, Galloway’s admiration for Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos and Eric Schmidt shines through.
Galloway’s insights suffer from the lack of a thorough edit. In places, he clearly recycles his previously published material and thus covers some territory more than once. If you have a passing familiarity with the Four, or are already a fan of Galloway’s popular videos, don’t expect to learn much new. Galloway shares some inside information, but not enough to qualify this as an exposé. However, his take on the Four’s strategies and secret motives are well worth reading, even if he overstates their evil for effect. While the views expressed are those of the author alone, getAbstract finds that his report may change your thinking about these titans of high tech industry. Galloway’s reportage will be relevant to businesspeople, students, consumers and Internet users any place within the reach of the Four, and that’s just about everywhere.
About the Author
Scott Galloway builds IT and media companies, teaches at New York University and creates very popular YouTube videos.
By the same author
Customers who read this also read
Comment on this recommendation
10 months agoI have already read this book. I subscribed to this because there is an analysis of what they all have in common (I think he called it the "T framework"). Why did you not put at least the bullet points of what they have in common? no need to describe. It was one of the only good analysis of this book. How did you let this pass?