Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Forced iAds Coming To OS X?

CmdrTaco posted about 4 years ago | from the my-worst-nightmare dept.

Advertising 416

mario_grgic writes "Apple insider brings a story about expansion and renewal of a current 'Advertisement in Operating System' patent that Apple's Steve Jobs and other contributors have. The patent describes in detail (with OS X screen shots) how the forced ads would work (they would disable some OS functionality until the ad is viewed), but apparently it also applies to any device with a UI, including phones, TVs, set top boxes, etc. With Apple's recent entry into the mobile ad business, and its ambition to own half of all the mobile ads served during the second half of this year, it certainly makes one wonder if Apple would dare and put something like this in its desktop OS. I wonder if this would push more people to open source alternatives?"

cancel ×

416 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Interesting Spin in the Summary (5, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | about 4 years ago | (#32990026)

With recent Apple entry into mobile ad business, and ambition to own half of all the mobile ads served in second half of this year, it certainly makes one wonder if Apple would dare and put something like this in its desktop OS. I wonder if this would push more people to open source alternatives?

I see what you did there. You made an unlikely assumption about how this patent would be used and then you turned it into an advertisement for open source. Well done. I hate Apple and Steve Jobs (smug bastard) vehemently but even I recognized that to be a highly contrived scenario and illogical statement.

But when I read the article, it seemed to make other assumptions about how this patent would be used. Assumptions that frankly make a whole hell of a lot more sense than asking users who have already paid a premium for an Apple desktop to watch iAds to further increase your profits. From the article:

Such a system could be used on computers placed in public places, allowing free access to the Internet on a terminal without paying a fee. Users could also choose to pay the fee and avoid the advertisements if they wish.

Huh. Imagine that. You know, when I walk through an airport I see people sitting around watching LCDs. And in between these CNN content sections are advertisements. That everyone seems to tolerate. I would wager that if you put in terminals with ads for internet access at airports, there would be an unending line to use them. Given that I only got free internet at an airport when Google felt generous last holiday season, I'd gladly use it and gladly watch ads.

Furthermore I pay $75+ per month for a smartphone with a data plan. This is the cheapest option and it includes a 20% off employer discount. If you could cut this in half with this sort of ad crap in the OS, you just might convince me to hop off of my Android operating system and on to crApple ... even a different carrier.

Like you, I am adverse to ad watching when I have already paid for something under the assumption I will be given unmitigated access to it. Like anyone else who has watched TV over the airwaves, I am interested in how you can reduce my financial liabilities via nominal time goblin advertisements and, while I'm certainly no economist, I believe that advertisements are very healthy for the economy. The market adjusts if they become too invasive or unhealthy (people revolt against the products using such tactics) but it results in more cash in my pocket to make more purchases with and entices me to make more purchases. Google's basically been minting money with them and has maintained a (for the most part) positive relationship with its consumers--despite those "consumers" being the very product they sell to other companies!

While I'm not a big fan of Design Patents (which I think this is), I think Apple could pull this off and generate some interest in yet further proliferation of ads. We all complain when we pay for something like a video game only to get DLC ads but I think if you popped a free ad laden iDevice into someone's hands they'd quit complaining fairly quickly.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary (1, Funny)

SquarePixel (1851068) | about 4 years ago | (#32990074)

Exactly, and it's only like 30 seconds of quality advertisements. I doubt Apple will put just any crap in there. Are you really so busy that you can't relax for 30 seconds?

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary (1, Troll)

mark72005 (1233572) | about 4 years ago | (#32990140)

I've paid good money for this PC. Why should anyone but me decide when I relax and when I should be able to work?

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary (1)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | about 4 years ago | (#32990320)

Because your boss can fire you?

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary (2, Insightful)

mr_gorkajuice (1347383) | about 4 years ago | (#32990350)

We're supposedly talking about a PC you didn't pay money for.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary (0, Offtopic)

socz (1057222) | about 4 years ago | (#32990498)

Since when can you download a PC???????????1!?!?!?#!?#!?@?#!@1111

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32990766)

I wish you could then I'd steal one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d82Lq2rVB_4 [youtube.com]

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32990722)

Just like we don't have to pay to watch cable thanks to ads?

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32990362)

Somebody I know bought an Apple laptop for his daughter. Eventually, the hard disk died and he went to get a new one, which they installed in store... but they didn't give him the old hard disk. He wanted it back to see if some data could be recovered, but they refused to give it back, saying it was not company policy. Not that his reason for having it back should matter, it was his, he paid for the new hard disk as it was not covered under warranty anymore. Both hard drives should have been his, as he paid good money for them. It should not be up to Apple to decide how to handle his property. So while you and I agree that having paid good money for your computer you should be able to decide when to relax and when to work, it is apparently Apple policy to not sell you said computer. Apparently all they really sell you is the privilege to use an Apple branded device, but it still remains their property. Now you can pay for the added privilege of watching Steve Jobs approved ads, on the Apple (TM) computer that you are fortunate enough to be allowed to use.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32990640)

Interesting story. Completely made up, but cute.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32990476)

Judging by the idiotic statements made by many slashdotters (including you, obviously), y'all are just so stupid that you can't understand the simple fact that iAds is about allowing developers to give the option of paying for the app via watching ads. It is not about the OS randomly bombarding users with ads. Fucking idiot slashtrolls...
--
...and the horse you rode in on!

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary (3, Interesting)

BrokenHalo (565198) | about 4 years ago | (#32990602)

Why should anyone but me decide when I relax and when I should be able to work?

Because you're supposed to think different. [So long as it's how Apple tells you to think.] Before the fanboys go up in flames, I'll point out a disclaimer: this is typed on a (second-hand hand-me-down) MacBook...

Apple is (I hope) simply taking out the patent to stake out the ground before Microsoft does the same. The line (from TFA) that says:" ...delaying an ad by 10 minutes, or choosing to watch one immediately. This would help to ensure that the ad is not overly intrusive" would not go down well with any reasonable person, since all ads are intrusive, and in at least one case (i.e. mine) would lead to deletion of OS X and replacement with Linux.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32990254)

Exactly, and it's only like 30 seconds of quality advertisements. I doubt Apple will put just any crap in there. Are you really so busy that you can't relax for 30 seconds?

I'm sorry, my sarcasm-o-meter is death-gripped today. Can't tell if you're being sarcastic or if you're just another iFanboy/iEvangelist when you claim that ads Apple puts on your OS are holy and right because they're quality from Apple. You sure SOUND like a Disciple of the All-Brushed-Steel^W All-Transluscent^W All-Shiny Steve to me...

Billionaire game: Abuse others (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32990354)

Steve Jobs' cancer is in remission. He interprets that at evidence he hasn't abused you enough.

no worries... (1)

Thud457 (234763) | about 4 years ago | (#32990496)

Good thing their motto is "don't be evil", so they won't abuse this capability.


whoops, that's them other guys.... awwww fuuuuuuuu

Re:Billionaire game: Abuse others (0, Troll)

BrokenHalo (565198) | about 4 years ago | (#32990670)

Steve Jobs' cancer is in remission. He interprets that at evidence he hasn't abused you enough.

Hey, I heard that 90% of you Americans believe in God. (That is weird.) Anyway, if that's true, you could do the rest of us some good and start praying that he gets sick again... ;-)

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary (5, Insightful)

countertrolling (1585477) | about 4 years ago | (#32990104)

It won't push them to open source. It will push them to Microsoft Windows. It's like saying when the democrats screw up, people will vote third party, when in truth, they'll vote republican... again.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary (2, Insightful)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about 4 years ago | (#32990566)

It's like saying when the democrats screw up, people will vote third party, when in truth, they'll vote republican... again.

And in four years, they'll vote the Democrats back, but with a (R) president (or Hillary) knowing exactly what to expect, but hoping they are wrong.

I really wish third parties got together, setting aside their differences and pooling their national campaigns into a "status quo (D) and (R) sucks, vote third party" type campaign.

Two party system sucks, and one party cannot represent the constituency it is supposed to represent.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary (0)

MrNaz (730548) | about 4 years ago | (#32990194)

This is great news. Especially the "functionality would be disabled until you view the ad". MS had the "are you really truly sure you want to move this file?" dialogs, Apple will have the "Are you truly sure that you do not want to buy a 12 ounce can of Heinz Beans?".

I also think that Apple can't afford to not do this. They have been forced to reduce their prices on their hardware, eating away their margins. I don't think that they would be able to continue to provide the level of support as well as the heavyweight retail presence with margins continuing to fall. Ads would increase the value to the bottom line of each sale.

Apple's "easy for the average Joe" goal with their products works. Apple stuff is easy for simple users. I don't use a Mac or an iPhone, but have to accept that there are many for whom they are a good option. There are a large number of things that I hate Apple products for, the desktop environment that does not lend itself to heavy multitasking (from a user perspective), the absurdly militant device compatibility rules (can't get any data on or off your iPhone unless it goes through iTunes from the same PC you used to set it up) and the poorly organized layout which makes Spotlight the main way to access your files and programs. iAds will go a long way to adding to the annoyance that is the Apple experience.

Bring on the enforced ad watching.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32990300)

I also think that Apple can't afford to not do this. They have been forced to reduce their prices on their hardware, eating away their margins.

A position clearly well supported by Apple's 78% increase in profits for the 3rd quarter compared to last year...

http://www.timesnewsline.com/news/Apple-Reports-Record-Revenue-on-Mac--iPhone---iPad-Sale-1279801097/ [timesnewsline.com]

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary (5, Interesting)

rinoid (451982) | about 4 years ago | (#32990396)

Facts:

1. Apple's computer unit sales have increased more than any other PC manufacturer in the past few years.
2. Apple's margins on their computers is the highest in the industry
3. Apple's profit on computer sales is very high
4. Apple's profit on phone sales is higher than many other vendors COMBINED
5. Apple's been in the smart phone business 3 years and has managed to sweep a segment into majority play
6. Apple's iPad, out for almost one quarter, is seen to be eating into low end, very low margin products from other vendors (cough::netbooks::/cough)

I don't believe there is all that much trouble on Apple's product pricing. True there will always be pressure to reduce prices, thereby reducing margins. However, Apple have decided to sale above that fray and have proven thus far successful.

What if this is a way to give away Mac OS X for use on DIY hardware?

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32990514)

1. If you go from selling 1 computer to 2 computers, you have just increased your sales by 100%. Apples volume to very low compared to Dell or HP, so woopdy doo..

2. You got that right. Apple tax! Enjoy!
3. Point 2 answered that one, this is redundant.
4. Yes they have high phone sales, so which vendors do they have higher sales on combined? The Kin and the nexus??
5. well duh, too obvious of a point.
6. Different products for different markets, iPads don't eat into netbook sales. Even without the iPon on the market, netbook sales would slow any way (market saturation).

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32990616)

1. They don't care about volume, they care about profits. And they're the 4th place vendor in the US.
2. You get what you pay for.
3. They make money on quality products. Their growing customer base seems ok with this.
4. They don't care about volume, they care about profits. They make more profits than the rest of the smartphone market combined.
5. They fundamentally changed the phone business and your answer is duh?
6. iPads up, netbooks down. Direct correlation. Market saturation? Try harder.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary (0, Troll)

sgraar (958944) | about 4 years ago | (#32990714)

Next time try to at least read the post to which you are replying with a modicum of attention.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about 4 years ago | (#32990704)

What if this is a way to give away Mac OS X for use on DIY hardware?

I don't think you understand WHY 1-6 are working. Apple doesn't sell HW. They don't sell SW. They don't sell phones.

They are selling the experience. In short they sell the sizzle, not the steak.

Putting the OS on commodity HW and giving it away with ADs popping up violates the whole approach. It has been done with the default bloat/crap/malware installs on HP and Dell computers sold at Walmart for years, and why most people NEED quad cores to run Windows.

In short, I don't think so.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary (3, Insightful)

PolyDwarf (156355) | about 4 years ago | (#32990296)

I see what you did there. You made an unlikely assumption about how this patent would be used and then you turned it into an advertisement for open source. Well done. I hate Apple and Steve Jobs (smug bastard) vehemently but even I recognized that to be a highly contrived scenario and illogical statement.

I don't see how you're able to say that it's "unlikely" and "highly contrived", considering there's a mockup of an osx-ish desktop in the article. The other portion you quoted about that it "could" be used for public kiosks, etc, doesn't say it *won't* be used for anything else. Especially when further in the article it specifically notes that it applies to anything with a UI, like set top boxes, smart phones, TV's, and others. Those aren't really public kiosk devices.

What's next... having to sit through an advertisement on my smartphone to make a call? Or is that too unlikely and contrived, given that the article mentions this can be used on smartphones, with no further qualification?

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary (2, Informative)

VolciMaster (821873) | about 4 years ago | (#32990298)

What airports do you fly through? Several I use frequently have freely-available wifi (BDL, LEX, ALB to name three)

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary (5, Insightful)

rinoid (451982) | about 4 years ago | (#32990310)

I see what you did there. You made an unlikely assumption about how this patent would be used and then you turned it into an advertisement for open source. Well done. I hate Apple and Steve Jobs (smug bastard) vehemently but even I recognized that to be a highly contrived scenario and illogical statement.

You lost me on "hate" and "smug bastard" and later on in your post "crApple" ... this kind of talk is nonsense and whatever else you said sounded like the other end of a phone call in a Charlie Brown cartoon.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary (2, Funny)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | about 4 years ago | (#32990492)

I see what you did there. You made an unlikely assumption about how this patent would be used and then you turned it into an advertisement for open source. Well done. I hate Apple and Steve Jobs (smug bastard) vehemently but even I recognized that to be a highly contrived scenario and illogical statement.

You lost me on "hate" and "smug bastard" and later on in your post "crApple" ... this kind of talk is nonsense and whatever else you said sounded like the other end of a phone call in a Charlie Brown cartoon.

You're clearly an M$ shill ...

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary (1)

nomadic (141991) | about 4 years ago | (#32990612)

You honestly would not characterize Jobs as smug? Seriously?

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary (1)

socz (1057222) | about 4 years ago | (#32990620)

Whats wrong with crapple? Oh, it must not be right to change how a word/name is said when it's something YOU like.

As usual with slang, the special vocabulary of hackers helps hold places in the community and expresses shared values and experiences. Also as usual, not knowing the slang (or using it inappropriately) defines one as an outsider, a mundane, or (worst of all in hackish vocabulary) possibly even a suit. All human cultures use slang in this threefold way — as a tool of communication, and of inclusion, and of exclusion.

From the Jargon File, 3 Par. http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/introduction.html [catb.org]

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary (1)

putch (469506) | about 4 years ago | (#32990314)

what? public kiosks? it's 2010. in 5 years most of the country will have a multicore computer with 4g wireless in their pocket and you think people will want to stand around and use a shared computer? why? to do what?

I mean, yeah, there's some spin in this article. But i've seen far far worse on slashdot. It makes a huge leap from "will apple actually do it" to "will people start installing linux" which is fairly preposterous. But it seems clear that apple is at least contemplating a version of iAds for the desktop space. and it might be something some subset of users would tolerate or embrace. However, it's kind of fanboish to just dismiss the question with some crazy kiosk talk and a "no big deal" defense of ads.

honestly though, i think the important question here is: if they have desktop iAds will they start a desktop app store? now THAT would be a big change for the consumer desktop world.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary (2, Interesting)

openfrog (897716) | about 4 years ago | (#32990330)

I see what you did there. You made an unlikely assumption about how this patent would be used and then you turned it into an advertisement for open source. Well done. I hate Apple and Steve Jobs (smug bastard) vehemently but even I recognized that to be a highly contrived scenario and illogical statement.

But when I read the article, it seemed to make other assumptions about how this patent would be used. Assumptions that frankly make a whole hell of a lot more sense than asking users who have already paid a premium for an Apple desktop to watch iAds to further increase your profits. From the article:

Such a system could be used on computers placed in public places, allowing free access to the Internet on a terminal without paying a fee. Users could also choose to pay the fee and avoid the advertisements if they wish.

Furthermore I pay $75+ per month for a smartphone with a data plan. This is the cheapest option and it includes a 20% off employer discount. If you could cut this in half with this sort of ad crap in the OS, you just might convince me to hop off of my Android operating system and on to crApple ... even a different carrier. .

Interesting. You accuse the parent of speculating on the likely use of this patent, but you end up building up a scenario that is very close to this very speculation... and you say you would want it.

I would never tolerate advertising messing with my OS, under any pretext and notwithstanding any promise. If this is allowed to go on, there will be no end to it, and it will not cost you a cent less in the end.

Thank you, but No.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary (1)

socz (1057222) | about 4 years ago | (#32990678)

They tried this with Net Zero Dialup Internet service many years ago... the response was great! But the company couldn't sustain that model because there were too many tools to disable or completely remove the advertisement. As you all know, they had ads on the screen, and the ad providers paid for your free service. So no ads = no clicking on ads = no selling/buying = no more free dialup inet.

I hate to say it but this "could be good for some random person," but definitely not for most. I'll stick to the real deal, FreeBSD.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary (1)

AlecC (512609) | about 4 years ago | (#32990370)

I no longer have a television, in part because of the ads. I would far rather read a book than watch TV with ads at an airport. I don't mind print ads, and I don't mind the ads on Google/GMail, because they are easy to ignore unless (as sometimes happens) I am interested. But anything in the form "watch this before you get what you want" will put me off very, very soon. A lot of videos I come across on Stumbleupon are now like this: watch 20-30 seconds of ad before you get whatever you came to see. I am usually clicking away within five seconds.

All right, I realise that I am at the extreme end, but if this gets between users and functionality they want, I can see it getting very unpopular.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary (1)

hammer_gaidin (1771328) | about 4 years ago | (#32990534)

I agree. I have stopped watching TV, even though I pay for the service, instead deciding to watch videos via hulu or companies website. And thanks to adblock i get minimal ads. Maybe I am a lost breed, one that believes if I pay for a service I do not want to see these ads. As for companies offering a subsidized pricing because of ad support. I believe that is a good idea, as long as they are still going to offer an ad free service. It may not be the solution for me, but for some one else sure.

iAds for iTunes Store/Apple TV iOS? (5, Insightful)

codeonezero (540302) | about 4 years ago | (#32990028)

I don't think this would be something implemented system wide, more than likely it could be iAds framework that developers could use when releasing free Mac Apps. Apple spends considerable time looking into user experience so something that would drive people away in droves is not likely to make it into OS X. Could also be a misleading patent that's really for iOS for Apple TV (which makes more sense to me). Something like free Movie/Music/Otherwise Paid content delivered via iTunes on Apple TV with need to watch the ads in order to keep viewing it, or pay up to download and have full access to that content. The same concept could apply to iTunes Store on Mac OS X.

Interesting (0)

SquarePixel (1851068) | about 4 years ago | (#32990034)

I wouldn't see this as a bad thing. It lets Apple improve their OS. If you have played World of Warcraft, you know Blizzard uses the subscription income to constantly create new content and features.

Besides, who can't take a 30 second break from computer every once in a while? Knowing Apple, the ads will be good and interesting to the viewer. This is really a non-issue. You will get to see interesting software or services (most likely tailored for you) and Apple can keep developing their OS.

Sign me up!

Re:Interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32990092)

notsureifserious.jpg

Re:Interesting (1, Troll)

mark72005 (1233572) | about 4 years ago | (#32990122)

So... Apple is disabling functionality until you view a forced ad... but they are doing it because they love us!

Re:Interesting (3, Funny)

Nerdfest (867930) | about 4 years ago | (#32990282)

So that's why I keep hearing "The Imperial March" in my head when I read stories about Apple these days. They know I love music!

Re:Interesting (0, Troll)

EraserMouseMan (847479) | about 4 years ago | (#32990392)

Apple is the authority on user experiences. Apparently Jobs' research has proven to him that Mac users will love having functionality disabled while they are forced to watch a super-cool ad. After all, people who buy Macs use them for dicking around on the Internet anyway. Slashdot should adopt Apple's new philosophy. Force Moderators who are dicking around on Slashdot with their Safari browser to watch a cool 30 second ad before being allowed mod down Apple bashing trolls.

Re:Interesting (2, Funny)

Culture20 (968837) | about 4 years ago | (#32990156)

I wouldn't see this as a bad thing. It lets Apple improve their OS. If you have played World of Warcraft, you know Blizzard uses the subscription income to constantly create new content and features. Besides, who can't take a 30 second break from computer every once in a while? Knowing Apple, the ads will be good and interesting to the viewer. This is really a non-issue. You will get to see interesting software or services (most likely tailored for you) and Apple can keep developing their OS. Sign me up!

You sir or madam, are an expert with comedy.

Re:Interesting (1)

stanlyb (1839382) | about 4 years ago | (#32990210)

I play Warcraft 3, but i dont play WoW, simply because of this subscription monthly fee. I prefer to play some of the other free MMORPG, for free, no subscription fee, and if i like some very special weapon then and only then i put some little amount of money, and continue my free ride trough the game. This is sound model for me, not this ridiculous "Pay Or Watch Ads" stupid greedy idea. Just forget it. Really, whats next, "Starting Notepad with ADS, or PAY to remove them"? And believe me, if this happens, i will drop my dual boot system and move entirely to Ubuntu or Fedora for example, or maybe even BeOS.

Re:Interesting (0, Offtopic)

socz (1057222) | about 4 years ago | (#32990744)

It's like the new program they're developing for all cell phones: The you can't text if you're moving via GPS updates. So, you install this on your phone, and when you're moving (assuming you're driving) you won't let yourself txt!

The interesting part of this scam, is that you don't buy it right out. You pay anywhere possibly from $5-$8 a MONTH for this "service." Yes, service!

So here's my idea, since I'm throwing my hat in to the whole android thing, I shall add this to my list of things to do! And distribute it for free. Yes, free! Of course there will always be donations accepted... :P

Incoming fucktard sopssa aka SquarePixel trolling (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32990078)

sopssa = SquarePixel = fucktard troll. Remember it moderators!

Peace out!

Re:Incoming fucktard sopssa aka SquarePixel trolli (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32990166)

Stop harassing sopssa. You should be IP banned.

WTF... (5, Insightful)

NRP128 (710672) | about 4 years ago | (#32990084)

Wow. Way to spread the FUD.

Re:WTF... (1)

EraserMouseMan (847479) | about 4 years ago | (#32990232)

Wow, the logical next step for these annoyed Mac users will be for them to ditch OSX and switch to Open Source Linux?

Re:WTF... (1)

Duradin (1261418) | about 4 years ago | (#32990590)

Seems to be that someone is still a little bitter about how that Nomad comparison turned out.

i! (3, Funny)

mark72005 (1233572) | about 4 years ago | (#32990094)

It's magical, amazing, innovative, revolutionary! Sign me up! Glittering iGeneralities make me swoon!

Re:i! (2, Funny)

cHiphead (17854) | about 4 years ago | (#32990174)

Anyone else read that as Forced Aids coming to OS X?

Re:i! (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | about 4 years ago | (#32990582)

Everybody should have aides [wikipedia.org] .

"push more people to open source?" (2, Funny)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | about 4 years ago | (#32990112)

Are you kidding? Apple users would take about 3 minutes to reboot their brains and then be all over the internet proclaiming how insanely brilliant this move would be. How the ads were fantastic and innovative proving (once again!) how far ahead of everyone else Steve Jobs is......and anyone who disagrees is just an Apple-hater.

Re:"push more people to open source?" (1)

stanlyb (1839382) | about 4 years ago | (#32990304)

I like to eat apples, is this making me an apple-hater or apple-lover?

Re:"push more people to open source?" (1)

imakemusic (1164993) | about 4 years ago | (#32990746)

Oh give it a rest. Not all Apple users are fanboy idiots. I've got a Macbook Pro because it's a good bit of hardware and it suits my needs. I've also got an HTC mobile because an iPhone doesn't. I don't like the sound of this ad system any more than you do though I have a feeling it's not as bad as the SlashFUD makes it appear.

If its in the OS kernel you're stuffed otherwise.. (2, Informative)

Viol8 (599362) | about 4 years ago | (#32990118)

... its probably nothing that kill -9 couldn't solve.

I suspect it'll be some background daemon that kicks off some process every now and then and disables
some portion of the GUI while its at it.

Re:If its in the OS kernel you're stuffed otherwis (3, Interesting)

Issarlk (1429361) | about 4 years ago | (#32990274)

...implying you'll still have root privileges on ad-OSes.

Re:If its in the OS kernel you're stuffed otherwis (2, Informative)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about 4 years ago | (#32990596)

Keep in mind that Apple has, in the past, crippled the ability of users to debug certain processes in Mac OS X -- processes like iTunes -- presumably because they had a vested interest in thwarting those users. What makes you think that they would allow you to run kill on a process that makes them money?

Personally, I want to say that this is just FUD. Much as I disagree with Apple's tactics, I do not think they would bother shoving iAds in Mac OS X; I think it is more likely that they will just shove iOS (with iAds) onto more product lines, and reserve OS X for their most expensive workstations.

Prior art (4, Insightful)

clone53421 (1310749) | about 4 years ago | (#32990136)

My DVD player disables certain functions while it is playing advertisements.

Re:Prior art (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32990200)

Don't forget Microsoft IE4's "desktop enhancements" from back in 1997 that just stuck glorified little ads, promoted as a "hot bar" or something like that. The Channel screen saver qualifies as well. IE 5.5 and later dropped that.

Re:Prior art (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32990322)

Don't forget Microsoft IE4's "desktop enhancements" from back in 1997 that just stuck glorified little ads, promoted as a "hot bar" or something like that. The Channel screen saver qualifies as well. IE 5.5 and later dropped that.

Silly boy. You forgot the First Rule of Apple Desktop Computing: "It's annoyance when Microsoft does it, innovation when Apple follows."

Re:Prior art (2, Informative)

linebackn (131821) | about 4 years ago | (#32990690)

Don't forget Microsoft IE4's "desktop enhancements" from back in 1997 that just stuck glorified little ads, promoted as a "hot bar" or something like that. The Channel screen saver qualifies as well. IE 5.5 and later dropped

Arrag, and all these years I was trying to erase that from my memory. The real purpose of the channel bar and channel screen saver was to promote Microsoft Internet Explorer 4. With the "enhanced" desktop IE 4 logos were also plastered all over other places in the user interface and used the IE document viewer shell in place of the previous Windows Explorer file manager.

They didn't prevent you from using the OS if you didn't view the channel bar ads (they DID try to prevent you from using the OS if IE was not installed) but the average person probably never turned off the channel bar or active desktop. So those graphics for MSN, MSNBC, Disney, etc probably burned themselves in to many CRTs.

Even today browser vendors take money for prominently placing default browser bookmarks, but at least those aren't usually as intrusive.

Re:Prior art (1)

kent_eh (543303) | about 4 years ago | (#32990386)

So does mine. And I hate it every time.
I have ripped and re-burned my most regularly watched movies simply to not be forced to repeatedly sit through the advertising for years old "coming attractions" and the Interpol warning.

I own the disk. I own the player. I get to be in control of how I watch it.

Re:Prior art (4, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | about 4 years ago | (#32990400)

My DVD player disables certain functions while it is playing advertisements.

Of course, the annoying thing about that is that advertising and previews wasn't why the DVD player has mandatory "no-skip" sections -- it was for the copyright notice.

Then a bunch of marketing weenies at Disney and others decided to make all of the previews and crap as mandatory as well.

I hope there's a special place in hell reserved for people who put mandatory ads into DVDs and other things. I'm pretty sure that if I bought a machine that locked me out until I watched an ad, I'd be taking it back to the store for a refund.

If I bought the machine, unless you gave me a discount on it or are paying me to watch ads, I'm not part of your advertising revenue.

Re:Prior art (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32990576)

That the cue to go to the bathroom.

Re:Prior art (1)

cpotoso (606303) | about 4 years ago | (#32990644)

Which is why every single DVD gets ripped ("movie only") to a HD and watched from there (PLEX on a mac mini connected to 40" LCD, neat!)

An Apple exclusive? (3, Interesting)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | about 4 years ago | (#32990150)

Wait a minute - if Apple has the patent on in-OS advertizing, does this mean that Microsoft will be unable to follow suit because Steve Jobs has ensured no one else but him gets to do it?

Re:An Apple exclusive? (5, Insightful)

VGPowerlord (621254) | about 4 years ago | (#32990218)

Wait a minute - if Apple has the patent on in-OS advertizing, does this mean that Google will be unable to follow suit because Steve Jobs has ensured no one else but him gets to do it?

FTFY

Re:An Apple exclusive? (2, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | about 4 years ago | (#32990420)

Wait a minute - if Apple has the patent on in-OS advertizing, does this mean that Microsoft will be unable to follow suit because Steve Jobs has ensured no one else but him gets to do it?

Sadly, it would likely mean that Apple would gladly license people to use their patent so they get paid no matter who is watching an ad.

Companies like revenue streams.

Ctrl+F AIDS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32990158)

Phrase not found

Are your serious?

Viruis hook. Hit [Install] to continue (1)

RichMan (8097) | about 4 years ago | (#32990178)

I can see that being exploited.

Advertising feeds are not generally considered high security. With a stop your OS type interrupt they are going to have to become very secure.

Re:Viruis hook. Hit [Install] to continue (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32990694)

I can see that being exploited.

Advertising feeds are not generally considered high security. With a stop your OS type interrupt they are going to have to become very secure.

So what are you planning to do? Hijack the feed and replace the ads with goatse pictures?

Steve? (1)

ground.zero.612 (1563557) | about 4 years ago | (#32990182)

I think the other CEO Steve would happily sell you an OS without adware pre-installed. He usually leaves that up to the OEM or the stupid end-user!

I doubt this is true (0)

geekoid (135745) | about 4 years ago | (#32990188)

gut if it is, good buy Apple Mac.

I doubt in the OS itself, but I could see it in... (1)

Supp0rtLinux (594509) | about 4 years ago | (#32990208)

I doubt Apple would do forced ads in OS X itself... but I could see iWork and iLife being free, albeit ad supported and perhaps other apps like Aperture or Logic Studio... sort of free with ads or pay for the full version. I could see the same thing in their movie trailers...

Target audience (5, Interesting)

MonsterTrimble (1205334) | about 4 years ago | (#32990214)

OSX & iOS users are not it. Frankly, pushed ads on those platforms would be suicidal - remember that Opera STILL has the millstone of ads around it's neck years after they went away. (Aside: I prefer Opera to every other browser - I still think it's faster then Chrome to boot). I think there is no way it would happen on their core cash cow machines.

That being said, as another poster put it above, TV & Video is where the next market is, and that's where these will come into play. That's why there's the fights over Flash & H264. I would put some good money on Apple building a 'custom' TV package for everyone. It would run under the iTunes banner and would basically be you pony up X dollars a month and get unlimited streaming video and audio. Meanwhile there will be ads before movies and TV shows begin, which have been targetted to you based on your show and movie preferences. Welcome to the world of "iTV: TV for me".

Re:Target audience (1)

Iburnaga (1089755) | about 4 years ago | (#32990598)

Funny that, originally paying for tv got you ad free tv. Why should people pay a monthly fee if the company will just milk them some more with time wasting and often annoying ads?

Re:Target audience (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | about 4 years ago | (#32990654)

Interesting idea, but if it runs under iTunes, it certainly ain't TV for me.

Free OS ad supported (1)

Orga (1720130) | about 4 years ago | (#32990220)

Not sure how it'd hurt apple to offer a free version of their operating system that is ad supported. I bet schools would even jump on this to start saving some money. Hell maybe Apple would cut them in on some fo the revenue for advertising to their captive teen audience.

Re:Free OS ad supported (1)

lockwesmonster (1303149) | about 4 years ago | (#32990326)

I was thinking along the same lines. iAds could greatly reduce the cost of Apple products. I imagine that Apple would still have their Ad-Free OS installed on computers selling for the same as the current prices. However, if someone chose to get the iAds pre-installed versions, the costs would be steeply discounted. I don't see how this is different from a cheap Dell shipping with a bunch of bloat-ware.

Re:Free OS ad supported (1)

guruevi (827432) | about 4 years ago | (#32990560)

Oh yes, because I would much rather view forced ads every so often than pay the $5 per machine it costs to volume license Snow Leopard. Even if you're only buying one, it's only $29 for an upgrade or $169 for Leopard, iWork and iLife or $229 for 5.

Re:Free OS ad supported (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about 4 years ago | (#32990686)

I bet schools would even jump on this to start saving some money

  1. I hope they don't; the last thing we need is for children and teenagers to be exposed to even more advertising. Things are bad enough as is, we really need to be removing advertisements from schools instead of inviting even more in.
  2. When have schools flocked to free (beer) software? It is rare to see schools using no cost operating systems, despite their wide availability. If schools migrated to an ad-supported Mac OS X, it would be because someone from Apple came to a school board meeting and gave a 4 hour presentation about how great it is for the school district to rely on Apple for software.

Ad-Supported Version? (1)

Tea-Bone of Brooklyn (828337) | about 4 years ago | (#32990258)

I could imagine having the normal version of OS-X that you buy, and a "free" ad-supported version. Maybe even one that runs (legally) on non-apple hardware. It would be a great way to entice Windows users to try it out - and buy the full version if they like it.

Force aIds? (1)

masmullin (1479239) | about 4 years ago | (#32990284)

oh iAds... a dyslexic moment lead me to believe it was forced aids! forced aids would suck..

FUD (4, Interesting)

drumcat (1659893) | about 4 years ago | (#32990286)

I've been seeing this garbage since Windows 95 SP2 was going to push ads to Active Desktop. Recycled news sucks.

To see this comment you must view a series of ads! (5, Funny)

linebackn (131821) | about 4 years ago | (#32990316)

To read this funny and insightful comment you must be signed in or view a series of advertisements:

- Click here to sign up for a premium account now (9.95 a month)!

- Click here for some other confusing options!

- Click here to view a long series of advertisements first in a useless attempt to see the comment.

- Click here to go back to Google and find some other site that has the same damn thing for free

Pot, Kettle (1, Insightful)

diamondsw (685967) | about 4 years ago | (#32990352)

Interesting how people are quick to jump on Apple for this, when Android and Chrome are created by an advertising company.

Re:Pot, Kettle (1, Insightful)

Nerdfest (867930) | about 4 years ago | (#32990700)

... that advertising company has gone out of its way so that you are *not* locked into their services. The work required to dump Apple, especially if you're computer+phone+medial player is quite a lot.

Shareware Alternatives (4, Insightful)

binaryspiral (784263) | about 4 years ago | (#32990372)

I actually like this idea. It's an alternative for small application developers to make money on their hard work.

Same goes for the iPhone iADs - it's not going to pop up ads in mail or calendar - it simply provides an API for developers to write in ad serving space on their free applications. This is an alternative to actually charging people money for the software.

Way to incite a flamewar and bring out the fan boys...

Apple TV (1)

whisper_jeff (680366) | about 4 years ago | (#32990374)

I could see this being a big part of a new, updated Apple TV. Ad drive OS to dramatically reduce the cost of the set-top box to a price point where consumers won't mind paying for it (compared to the free set top box they probably get from their cable provider). Now, while watching tv, the viewer is "forced" to watch ads served up by Apple. Not that much different from the current situation but now with the added functionality that Apple will provide.

For non-Apple hardware? (1)

benmcollins13 (1835308) | about 4 years ago | (#32990406)

Maybe this is a way to subsidize MacOS X on non-Apple hardware? Like download a MacOS X 10.6 for Dell, and you get the crappy forced Ads.

Short answer: no (2, Interesting)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 4 years ago | (#32990410)

I wonder if this would push more people to open source alternatives

Ads will not on their own push people to alternatives. You need two things before Joe User will switch:

  • They need to know there are alternatives
  • They need to be able to run their applications on them, in exactly the same way they already run those applications

Until then it doesn't matter. If OS X delivered electric shocks to its users at random intervals, they still wouldn't switch to something else if they didn't know there was a something else, or if they couldn't run their applications on that something else in exactly the same way they run it on OS X (and ditto for Windows).

In other words, in case you didn't get the memo, emulation options are not good enough for most users. As an example, most users would try Wine once (at most) and then never want to use it again because it isn't exactly the same as what they are used to.

Stuck at 5% (0, Troll)

Lawrence_Bird (67278) | about 4 years ago | (#32990464)

For all the Apple is great! bs that you read, their market share in the os area is still stuck at 5% +/- a tiny bit depending on the metric used. So really what you should be asking is 'will apple fanboys be offended by ads on their lap/desktops enough to go back to windows?' These are users which treasure ease of use and they aren't going to get that in any linux or BSD alternative.

Anonymous Coward (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32990474)

in order for them to grab more OS marketshare... could the be using this patent to create a possible free MAC OS to distribute to the masses?

iAids (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32990536)

Am I the only one that read that as forced iAids?

Did anyone else... (1)

rotide (1015173) | about 4 years ago | (#32990542)

Did anyone else read the title as "Forced Aids Coming To OS X?".

While I'm no Apple fan, I was starting to think they were dirtier than I had previously thought.

So did subby even read the article? (3, Informative)

SilverJets (131916) | about 4 years ago | (#32990660)

First line in the linked article (and it is even in bold):

Apple could be creating an operating system supported by advertisements, allowing users to obtain the software at a reduced price, or for free, in exchange for being required to view ads.

Subby's summary:

Forced iAds Coming To OS X?

Sure, forced ads for those that bought the subsidized copy of the OS. You get what you pay for.

Thanks for this info (-1, Flamebait)

FudRucker (866063) | about 4 years ago | (#32990672)

I can add that to the list of reasons to not buy the over priced crap Apple sells and idiots worship.

Oh. So they're in the malware business now. (0, Redundant)

Chas (5144) | about 4 years ago | (#32990768)

"they would disable some OS functionality until the ad is viewed"

Were something like this to happen on my system, I wouldn't be mad.
I'd be livid! As in "get a gun, drive to Cupertino and kill everyone responsible for this".

MY machine.
My screen.

You don't simply turn off parts of my OS as a goad to make me do what you want me to.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>