Will Apple force you to watch ads?

[Renew Deal]

Jobs & Co. have filed for a patent on tech that embeds ads into operating systems and makes you prove you've watched them. This idea is so bad, Apple can't possibly be serious.

Yes, this is true: Last year Apple Inc. filed for http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2009/10/apple-prepares-to-rock-the-market-with-hardware-subsidizing-program.html">a patent on technology that would force you to watch advertisements, no matter how hard you tried to avoid it.

First made public back in October, the notion is getting more attention thanks to an essay in Saturday's New York Times by Randall Stross, who has picked a few bones with Apple in the past.

The idea is that phones, computers, set-top boxes, etc. can be sold more cheaply -- or even given away for free -- if subsidized by ads. But because nearly everyone who doesn't work in the ad industry loathes advertising, the subsidizers need to ensure people are actually watching these horrid things. Per Stross:

"Its distinctive feature is a design that doesn't simply invite a user to pay attention to an ad — it also compels attention. The technology can freeze the device until the user clicks a button or answers a test question to demonstrate that he or she has dutifully noticed the commercial message. Because this technology would be embedded in the innermost core of the device, the ads could appear on the screen at any time, no matter what one is doing."
<snip>

http://www.infoworld.com/d/adventures-in-it/will-apple-force-you-watch-ads-556

[FLAprogressive]

1. Hah, I guess Apple is not as progressive as we all thought. $$$ talks.

[Renew Deal]

9. They never were.

They have always had a paternalistic approach.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

2. Is this an ad?

:think:

[krispos42]

3. This could make "private time" difficult n/t

[Romulox]

4. Way to guarantee I never buy another Macbook! nt

[Warpy]

5. Maybe he's sick and tired of the computer business

and wants to kill his part of it off so he doesn't have to worry about it any more.

I can think of no other reason to do this.

Now that Microschlock is starting to do a few things right, putting this garbage into his software would make it look better and better.

It's still bloatware, but it's bloatware that works.

On edit: he could be adding it to freeware applications like Quick Time. It would kill that one, too, nobody would bother using it any more.

[AndyA]

6. If true, people just need to not buy the junk.

When they have thousands of them sitting around not selling, they'll get the hint.

Personally, I think ads on web sites are OK. I don't care for pop ups or pop unders, nor do I like the flash ads that expand when you roll over them. They should require a click to expand, that way only people interested in the ad see it.

Ads help pay to keep web sites online. It takes time and money to update sites and publish content. Unless they charge for access, SOMETHING has to pay the bills. And that's usually advertising. By blocking ads, you're just killing someone's ability to care for themselves and their family.

Ads on pages and in content don't bother me unless they block my view of the content or do something without my expressly doing something to see the ad.

[NYCGirl]

7. Apple files hundreds of patents a year. 99% go no further. NT

[alfredo]

22. That's true. It's better to have a patent and not need it, than to pay someone

else if you ever need the technology.


I wouldn't mind a click through if it means saving a few dollars on a magazine subscription.

[emulatorloo]

8. Probably just wants to get the idea patented so Microsoft will have to pay them to use it in Windows

SEe NYCGirl's post.

Companies always file lots of patents. At some point some manufacturer is going to want to make a cheap device that is ad supported -- Think AMAZON.COM's KINDLE for example. Then Apple can sell them something or work on it.

[alfredo]

10. This might be in anticipation of publishers insisting on adware when they

move from dead tree to digital. Such a click through might make the difference in negotiating a distribution contract with Conde Nast or Time Warner.

[csziggy]

11. Another reason not to buy an Apple product!

The anti-Windows ads with the skinny Apple kid are annoying, the whatever they are selling ads with the washed out space cadet woman are irritating, and even Apple users have no use for out dated Apple products.

On the other hand, when I was refurbishing old computers to give to people who could not afford to buy one, PC and TRS-80 users were happy to help me get them up and running. I must have refurbished twenty-five old computers to give to families - and was given operating systems and programs to make them useful for school work and other basic use. The Apple Users group would not give any advice at all and told me to throw away the ten old Macs I had.

The last Apple product I owned was an Apple II - never again.

[emulatorloo]

Funny, I am posting on a G4 I purchased in 2000. Running OS X 10.5

Jobs is trying to broaden his business, my guess is this is a patent for a technology they will liscense to other vendors that want to produce FREE computer type products, like that Amazon Book Reading one.

[Auggie]

12. No one would buy any gizmo with that installed

[emulatorloo]

14. what about a FREE amazon.com kindle type device?

I can see a company producing a free newspaper reader or something, and since apple has applied for the patent they would need ot work out a deal with apple on royalties.

[Auggie]

20. Not if people have to answer A TEST about the message they saw

[emulatorloo]

26. Then no free New York Time Electronic NewsPad for you

I would imagine who ever licenses this technology could implement it however they want (no questions)

[Auggie]

28. No questions is a different matter

Then it becomes like watching television or listening to radio.

[Electric Monk]

23. Bingo. You get it.

The rest of this thread is pretty funny though.

[Touchdown]

13. Cringely makes a Cavuto and everybody pisses their pants.

"Will Apple force you to..."? Well? Hmmmmm? Did Apple rape and murder a young girl in 1990?

Apple haters will say yes. That's the only thing that's known at this point.

[n2doc]

17. +1 n/t

[LeftHander]

15. Yes.

[Renew Deal]

16. lol

:rofl:

[FreeState]

18. Apple, like most tech companies file for patens they will never use

seriously for every 50 or so patens apple uses one. The same is true of Microsoft etc. They payed to research and develop the concept - it does not mean they will use it - it also does not mean they will give it away to a rival for free - hence the paten.

FYI - most pondants think this was for a free computer idea (its free but has commercials that pay for the computer).

[Robb]

19. Or "less than free," like Google's heading to. nt

[emulatorloo]

27. I can see newspaper licensing it for a free Mobile Newspaper Device

[endless october]

21. that's an even dumber idea than charging 4X as much for a computer.

i don't believe Apple will do this.

[Odin2005]

24. So much for Apple being "Progressive", LOL!

[matt819]

25. Go to abc.com for video streaming

ABC does something like this with their video streaming. Most networks just serve the ads and return to programming. ABC serves the ad, and then you have to click to continue. This doesn't ensure that I watched the ad, just that I clicked to continue. Unless they strap me in my chair, they can't "compel" me to watch their ads. I can still go to the bathroom, take a quick nap, read a paragraph in a book. As for embedding this in the OS? I'm no techie, but I can't see how that would be relevant, as it would apply only to the particular video that I'm watching, not to anything else I'm asking my computer to do when I'm working on other programs.