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!

Video Adverts On the Printed Page

timothy posted about 4 years ago | from the for-those-not-following-alien-tech dept.

Advertising 153

An anonymous reader writes "Prepare yourself. A staple of near-future sci-fi—magazine video ads—are now a thing of the present. And which high-tech magazine is leading the charge? Wired? Popular Mechanics? Nope. Successful Farming. The advertisement itself is for a pesticide that protects crops against nematodes. You can see a video of the video here."

cancel ×

153 comments

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

Mute button (3, Insightful)

thomasinx (643997) | about 4 years ago | (#33365864)

Did anyone catch whether or not there was a mute button? I could see an ad with audio like that being incredibly annoying when reading in a public place.

Overall though, I think this is an interesting trend. I definitely wonder whether or not the benefit of such an ad outweighs the cost of all the extra hardware...

Re:Mute button (4, Insightful)

camperdave (969942) | about 4 years ago | (#33365902)

Did anyone catch whether or not there was a mute button?

I would imagine that it is like those musical greeting cards: close the page, and it shuts off.

Re:Mute button (1)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | about 4 years ago | (#33367994)

This is an advertisement we're talking about. It would just get louder.

Re:Mute button (1)

beakerMeep (716990) | about 4 years ago | (#33365928)

Here's a frightening thought, what happens when the marketroids realize they could combine this tech with the old "make the ad fall out of the magazine on purpose" trick.

Brilliant!

Re:Mute button (4, Funny)

Z00L00K (682162) | about 4 years ago | (#33366236)

Then they just have to make it proofed against everything up to and including a sledgehammer.

But if you want to make sure that you aren't annoyed a few seconds in the microwave would take care of the problem.

The next thought is - can this be hacked? Probably, and now we will wait for those items to appear in pr0n magazines too. Just imagine what people will look like if the magazine stand starts to moan.

Re:Mute button (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33366614)

and now we will wait for those items to appear in pr0n magazines too.

wow, i was seriously pissed off by the idea of video adds in magazines untill i read this!

finally playboy can add video's to their magazine!

Re:Mute button (4, Funny)

somersault (912633) | about 4 years ago | (#33366832)

finally playboy can add video's to their magazine!

www.playboy.com [playboy.com] + Mobile Internet Device [wikipedia.org]

Adding videos to their magazine is like adding apostrophes to words that don't need them.

Re:Mute button (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33367090)

Preposterou's!

Re:Mute button (1)

cygnwolf (601176) | about 4 years ago | (#33368370)

Adding videos to their magazine is like adding apostrophes to words that don't need them.

Now I wish I hadn't spent all my mod points....

Re:Mute button (5, Insightful)

246o1 (914193) | about 4 years ago | (#33366004)

This is the kind of thing that will make me want to carry around a hammer or an EMP device. Ads already pollute enough of my life.

Re:Mute button (4, Interesting)

meerling (1487879) | about 4 years ago | (#33366192)

Makes me want to hack and repurpose them.

Re:Mute button (2, Informative)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 4 years ago | (#33366944)

The technology in use is Americhip's "Video in print" [americhip.com] . They are a touch light on technical detail; but it appears to be a full color LCD screen, most likely made possible by the economies of scale of the cellphone world, along with a driver board of some kind(unlike say, the fixed-segment, e-ink display that Esquire ran 100,000 of, which was pretty easy to control; but nearly worthless because it was fixed-segment and not even usefully so like the old LCD/LED alphanumeric displays).

I'd assume that, for the relatively short runs they are doing, the included videos aren't stored in mask ROMS or PROMs, and that the driver is some comparatively sane fixed-function-video-decoder-plus-LCD-driver-and-enough-GPIO-for-a-few-buttons thing. Whether the whole thing kindly has labeled holes for the insertion of a JTAG header, or even a logic-level "rs-232" interface easily available, or whether it is some cryptographic lockdown horror is another question, though...

Re:Mute button (2, Interesting)

Pezbian (1641885) | about 4 years ago | (#33367488)

I remember Esquire.
Suit: "We encourage hacking of the displays!"
Hacker: "Well... I made a clock out of it... but that's all and it takes a training seminar to learn to read it."

This isn't going to be useless at all... until the suits realize they can save half a penny by shrinking the circuit board to get rid of all those trivial externally-accessible contacts, sealing the ASIC into an epoxy blob to save the expense of IC packaging and switching to PROM to spare the expense of Flash memory.

With the savings, they can afford louder speakers and larger batteries!

Sure, the whole things can no longer be recycled and Mother Nature showed up in person to slash her wrists, but it means another round of gold-plated Bentleysfor the Board of Directors so who gives a shit, right?

Re:Mute button (1)

Travco (1872216) | about 4 years ago | (#33367722)

Hack A Day has some useful info on this thing in the last 15 or so comments on this article. http://hackaday.com/2009/08/21/cbs-introduces-video-in-print-technology/#comments [hackaday.com]

Re:Mute button (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33366088)

You can just install ad block plus and you won't be bothered by these anymore.

Re:Mute button (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33366438)

Did anyone catch whether or not there was a mute button? I could see an ad with audio like that being incredibly annoying when reading in a public place.

Overall though, I think this is an interesting trend. I definitely wonder whether or not the benefit of such an ad outweighs the cost of all the extra hardware...

I tried to remove the superfluous stuff from your post, here's the same thing in shorter form.

I'm confused by 1) how this works 2) whether it's a good thing. I don't know what "trend" means.

You're welcome...

Re:Mute button (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33366734)

Thank you for your sharing,I'm very interesting in mbt sandals [pointingtrade.com] .Whatever your fashion calling is or isn't,nothing says dedication like mbt changa [pointingtrade.com] and cheap mbt chapa gtx [pointingtrade.com] . Everyone is going MBT Kisumu Sandals [pointingtrade.com] that has a positive effect on the whole body. discount mbt shoes [pointingtrade.com] are fast becoming one of the fashion trends of the shoes.

Landfill... (5, Insightful)

bennomatic (691188) | about 4 years ago | (#33365894)

Aren't there a lot of "bad things* in computers and monitors? Isn't it bad enough the ones on our desktops turn over every few years? Can you imagine if hundreds of thousands of these ended up in the landfill every month? Forgive me if I sound like a kneejerk hippy, but this just doesn't seem at all green.

Re:Landfill... (5, Funny)

vidnet (580068) | about 4 years ago | (#33365942)

Well, considering that it's an advert for poison...

Re:Landfill... (1)

Z00L00K (682162) | about 4 years ago | (#33366240)

And this first one would be a collectors item.

Re:Landfill... (5, Funny)

camperdave (969942) | about 4 years ago | (#33365944)

Forgive me if I sound like a kneejerk hippy, but this just doesn't seem at all green.

Just turn off all the red and blue pixels, and it'll be green.

Re:Landfill... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33365956)

Too bad some asshole modded you down, because he disagrees.

Re:Landfill... (2, Insightful)

Spacezilla (972723) | about 4 years ago | (#33366014)

Doesn't matter, that post will surely get modded up to the maximum as Insightful in no time.

Re:Landfill... (1)

bennomatic (691188) | about 4 years ago | (#33366076)

It doesn't deserve insightful. Maybe interesting. Insightful implies that I'm right. For all I know, this ad system is made of cotton and corn.

Re:Landfill... (1)

Spacezilla (972723) | about 4 years ago | (#33366136)

To me Interesting is: "I hadn't thought of that, good point." and Insightful is: "Yeah, you nailed it, my thoughts exactly."

So I would personally mod this Insightful, not Interesting, but I guess we all have our own definitions for the moderation options. :)

Re:Landfill... (5, Insightful)

gringer (252588) | about 4 years ago | (#33366176)

Well, actually, the way you are meant to be moderating (according to the /. underlords) can be found here [slashdot.org] . It's almost the reverse of what you suggest. Quote unrelated:

  • Insightful -- An Insightful statement makes you think, puts a new spin on a given story (or aspect of a story). An analogy you hadn't thought of, or a telling counterexample, are examples of Insightful comments.
  • Interesting -- If you believe a comment to be Interesting (and it's not mostly Redundant, Offtopic, or otherwise lame), it is.

Re:Landfill... (1)

Spacezilla (972723) | about 4 years ago | (#33366206)

Wow, thanks for that, I remember reading those guidelines years ago, but have since forgotten all about them. I should probably read them again next time I get mod points. :)

Re:Landfill... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33367540)

For all I know, this ad system is made of cotton and corn.

It could also be made from tree bark, alfalfa and Lada Gaga's pussy juice, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Re:Landfill... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33368440)

...Lada Gaga's pussy juice, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Given that, I think I would hold my breath very tightly indeed.

Re:Landfill... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33365980)

Geeks lead the way. Defcon has electronic badges. A new one every year. Disposable electronics is not a future thing, it's already here. Fortunately I can not see magazines being profitable with manufacturing costs that high. If this even becomes a trend in print, then it will certainly be replaced by universal electronic readers.

Re:Landfill... (0, Offtopic)

Imaria (975253) | about 4 years ago | (#33365982)

Someone mod this UP, please?

Re:Landfill... (1)

Bombur (544425) | about 4 years ago | (#33366422)

The landfill issue can be ended if the following question can be answered with "yes":

Can it be hacked?

Re:Landfill... (1)

bickerdyke (670000) | about 4 years ago | (#33366624)

that much for farmers beeing green.....

I want (1)

CTU (1844100) | about 4 years ago | (#33365932)

I kinda want a copy of that mag...although I wonder if that screen can be used for anything else?

Re:I want (1)

txoof (553270) | about 4 years ago | (#33366674)

That looks like a great place to start hacking from!

Pimp my mag (5, Funny)

XiaoMing (1574363) | about 4 years ago | (#33365984)

Yo dawg! I heard you like overkill, so we put up a video of a video of an advertisement in an advertisement so you can watch while you read about watching while you read!

Re:Pimp my mag (3, Interesting)

gringer (252588) | about 4 years ago | (#33366218)

we put up a video of a video of an advertisement in an advertisement so you can watch while you read about watching while you read!

Your statement is a wonderfully concise explanation of the craziness of this story.

Re:Pimp my mag (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33366436)

http://cdn0.knowyourmeme.com/i/1122/original/xzibit-happy.jpg?1258588091

FUCKING NIGGERS!!!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33365986)

I love nigger cock!

Looks cool, but (4, Insightful)

Max Romantschuk (132276) | about 4 years ago | (#33366008)

Is it just me, or isn't that horrendously fucking ridiculously wasteful? Environmentally, that is.

Re:Looks cool, but (1)

Custard Horse (1527495) | about 4 years ago | (#33366312)

It's also not very 'Minority Report' is it?

I could create a larger version at home using some cardboard and my plasma screen or perhaps I'm missing the point..

Re:Looks cool, but (3, Interesting)

plumby (179557) | about 4 years ago | (#33366744)

I was thinking the same thing - there's a big difference between something that looks like a sheet of paper, but with animation on it, and something that looks like a small TV screen stuck into a hole in the page.

Maybe it looks better in real life, but it looks quite some way from proper "sci fi" e-paper to me.

Re:Looks cool, but (1)

Trogre (513942) | about 4 years ago | (#33366576)

The latter.

further details (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33366018)

some more links with additional information.

this post includes info on pricing, the cost is $50/insert for a volume of 1,000
http://blogs.physicstoday.org/newspicks/2009/08/welcome-entertainment-weekly-r.html

about halfway through there is footage of the raw board. looks like a standard small LCD, Li-Ion pack and logic board. and surprisingly a mini-usb for recharging
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3pI8F7ShSQ

Re:further details (1)

AmonTheMetalhead (1277044) | about 4 years ago | (#33366528)

I kind of want one.... wonder how hackable these things are

Fake? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33366028)

I suspect a fake, though I would have a hard time trying to demonstrate it. Just one thought : who would be willing to pay the huge costs this ad represents? Also, my grumpy side wonders about the ecological consequences of this (pretty much like in the old days of freebie ISP discs).

Re:Fake? (1)

careysub (976506) | about 4 years ago | (#33368182)

I suspect a fake, though I would have a hard time trying to demonstrate it. Just one thought : who would be willing to pay the huge costs this ad represents?...

Reading TA it is revealed that only a small specially selected group of farmers got it, like farmers with over 1000 acres. At a price of $8000 an acre in Iowa, that means only operations with capitalization in excess of $8 million received the ad (which cost $50). So the answer is - a company running a targeted campaign to customers who might buy tens of thousands of dollars of their product annually. Some years ago a single click on an Overture search engine ad for the key word "data recovery" was worth $25 due to hefty sum a convertible lead would bring.

Interesting (4, Interesting)

Xeno man (1614779) | about 4 years ago | (#33366044)

One of the first things that come to mind is cost. How much does it cost to run these types of adds. Is it really cost effective to manufacture batteries, displays, speakers and memory for video to be viewed maybe once if at all just to be tossed out? Now if displays are really that cheap, we should also be seeing an effect of lower costs on all displays. Also where can I get a few dozen copies as I'd love to start hacking those displays and putting together some sort of awesome free display.

Re:Interesting (1)

c0lo (1497653) | about 4 years ago | (#33366304)

Cost-wise, long term, would worth better if the magazine offers an eBook reader to subscribers for 1 year subscription
As the prices are falling fast (e.g. Kobo - under $150), it would not take long for niche magazines to be distributed in electronic format only, with all the multimedia ads they want.

Re:Interesting (1)

delinear (991444) | about 4 years ago | (#33367174)

If the technology becomes widespread enough that it's commonplace, you're probably right. I suspect the first few magazines to do this will be more interested in the temporary readership boost they'll get from being one of the first to offer it than in offering better value to customers. This is no doubt what's attractive about it to the advertisers, too (i.e. it might not justify the cost by itself, but they're probably banking on the extra publicity they'll get).

Re:Interesting (1)

gshegosh (1587463) | about 4 years ago | (#33367302)

It surely *was* very cost effective for the first advertiser that has done that -- look, they're all over the news, even on Slashdot!

Not quite the future I imagined (3, Insightful)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | about 4 years ago | (#33366068)

I used to dream about newspapers that had video where the pictures would normally go, but otherwise the pages with video didn't look any different from the pages you see in real newspapers. It's not as impressive when the video screen is small and the page is as thick as cardboard.

Re:Not quite the future I imagined (2, Interesting)

Pezbian (1641885) | about 4 years ago | (#33367556)

Reminds me of video in Windows 3.1. If it didn't crash every half-second, you were treated to 96x72px moving postage stamps of the moon landing and other stuff that actually made a VHS tape look great in comparison.

Re:Not quite the future I imagined (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33367606)

no kidding.

in 1950, they promised flying cars for everyone.

"no more then 2 or 3 decades"

Didn't I see this before? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33366084)

Yes. Yes I did. [slashdot.org]

Re:Didn't I see this before? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33366414)

Re:Didn't I see this before? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33367730)

Also, same editor. Hah!

Uh oh (-1, Offtopic)

wraithguard01 (1159479) | about 4 years ago | (#33366092)

The muggles have figured out how to put moving pictures in their magazines. Seriously though, I wonder if this was at all inspired by Harry Potter?

What's in a name? (3, Insightful)

tgv (254536) | about 4 years ago | (#33366102)

Nobody noticed the abbreviation for Successful Farming is SF?

Re:What's in a name? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33366124)

Seems appropriate since "successful" starts with s and "farming" starts with f.

Re:What's in a name? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33366608)

Nobody noticed the abbreviation for Successful Farming is SF?

It should be an acronym, not abbreviation..

Re:What's in a name? (1)

oodaloop (1229816) | about 4 years ago | (#33367516)

OMG Successful Farming is just a front for the Special Forces! I knew it!

SCARY THOUGHT (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33366104)

What happens when people can hack the magazine, and make it show rickroll clips?

Re:SCARY THOUGHT (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33366172)

Then I will have epic lulz while waiting at the dentist's office.

Re:SCARY THOUGHT (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33366188)

my guess is that people get rickrolled?

Another misleading summary... (2, Informative)

dmitriy88 (1096195) | about 4 years ago | (#33366190)

...you can hardly call Wired a 'magazine'

Farmers are often on the cutting edge (5, Informative)

Osty (16825) | about 4 years ago | (#33366196)

I've been saying it for some time now, but farmers have pretty much always been on the cutting edge of technology. The common view of farmers as slack-jawed yokels couldn't be any further from the truth. For thousands of years, most technology advances were the domain of farming. How do you think we can continue to feed the world's growing population and still have food surpluses that can be used for stuff like ethanol, high fructose corn syrup, plastics, etc.?

Growing up as the son of a farmer, we were always playing around with new technology long before anyone else. Think your GPS is pretty sweet? Yeah, we had that in the early 90s for charting harvest yields (X bushels harvested at Y location with a relatively fine scale on the location == pretty yield maps). Wireless real-time stock quotes? We had that in the 80s for the futures markets. Self-driving vehicles? You've been able to buy tractors that would drive themselves in the fields for the past 15+ years, including collision avoidance (fields are not empty -- there are creeks, rocks, power lines, hills, etc that all need to be avoided or otherwise handled). The only thing surprising about this story is that this didn't happen 5 years ago.

Re:Farmers are often on the cutting edge (1)

The_mad_linguist (1019680) | about 4 years ago | (#33366238)

Yes, I've read a documentary [mangareader.net] on that exact subject.

Re:Farmers are often on the cutting edge (1)

c0lo (1497653) | about 4 years ago | (#33366334)

I've been saying it for some time now, but farmers have pretty much always been on the cutting edge of technology. [...]

Strikes me as extremely stupid, then. What stops them to buy an eReader and ask the magazine be delivered in electronic format, with all the multimedia ads they want?

Re:Farmers are often on the cutting edge (5, Interesting)

osu-neko (2604) | about 4 years ago | (#33366352)

Strikes me as extremely stupid, then. What stops them to buy an eReader and ask the magazine be delivered in electronic format, with all the multimedia ads they want?

Well, he was talking about farmers. The farmers are smart. Magazine publishers, on the other hand...

Re:Farmers are often on the cutting edge (1)

Warll (1211492) | about 4 years ago | (#33366464)

I'll guaranty you that it was not the Magazine publisher how financed the ad, typically the person who is advertising the product will pay for ads.

Now as to if Bayer is making a mistake here, I would say no. When you think about it the modern farmer is a very lucrative target market. They make their own buying decisions, most of their expenses are in consumables (Pesticides being a major one) and capital (vs labour as in most other industries) and like all business owners are always willing to buy a product capable of increasing yield.

Bayer also gets a very high yield per ad unit, after all how many people do you know subscribe to farming magazines without owning a farm? This isn't your average magazine where most units will sit on shelfs until being sent back to the publisher.

Re:Farmers are often on the cutting edge (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 4 years ago | (#33366980)

Also, TFA says that, since this is more of a subscription magazine than a newsstand thing, they could target the ad based on the size of the subscriber's farm. Going to the trouble of doing that suggests that these things are not inexpensive; but that Bayer will probably be getting a pretty decent chunk of whatever it is that advertising efficacy is measured in...

Re:Farmers are often on the cutting edge (1)

ksandom (718283) | about 4 years ago | (#33366698)

What stops them to buy an eReader and ask the magazine be delivered in electronic format, with all the multimedia ads they want?

In a lot of parts of the world, an internet connection. For example, it's very hilly here, so it's not viable to run lines or get wireless access to remote areas.

Re:Farmers are often on the cutting edge (2, Interesting)

delinear (991444) | about 4 years ago | (#33367212)

What's to say they're not already doing that? If a significant portion of readers prefer electronic versions and a similarly significant portion prefer dead tree editions then the smart move would be to cater to both markets, not just tell the dead tree people to move with the times and dump them. And as to why they prefer dead tree editions, any number of valid reasons, maybe it's easier to relax with a magazine than with a laptop or eReader, maybe they like to stick it in a back pocket while out in the field so they can read it over lunch without worrying about it breaking or getting lost, maybe they just prefer to read articles on paper. I'm sure a good percentage of the readership here still prefer books to eReaders, and this is hardly a site with a luddite leaning.

Re:Farmers are often on the cutting edge (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33366390)

It would be cool if it weren't for all the farm subsidies that enable it. Instead it just makes me kind of sick to my stomach.

Re:Farmers are often on the cutting edge (2, Insightful)

longhairedgnome (610579) | about 4 years ago | (#33366518)

Same effect you get from all the corn products you eat?

Re:Farmers are often on the cutting edge (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33366446)

So what you're saying is.... Between the price we pay and the subsidies.....

We are VASTLY overpaying for food.

Ok.. that sounds about right.

Re:Farmers are often on the cutting edge (1)

Steauengeglase (512315) | about 4 years ago | (#33368068)

No, what he is really saying is that people are willing to take risks on tech if it will potentially increase their yields.

Average Joe consumer doesn't need a car that can drive itself, because he is using it to get from point A to B, not drive in circles in the parking lot while he goes off to do something else. A farmer on the other hand, can use something like that.

Re:Farmers are often on the cutting edge (3, Insightful)

0WaitState (231806) | about 4 years ago | (#33366450)

There's no technology helping with ethanol production, unless you consider technology oriented towards lobbying congresscritters. There's only a tiny, tiny band of US farmland where one can grow corn efficiently enough to achieve a small (1.01 coefficient) energy-positive margin for the ethanol produced. Everywhere else it's a subsidised net energy loss--you use more petroleum products fertilizing, transporting product, and moving water than you save with the ethanol generated.

My country tis of thee, sweet land of subsidy.

Re:Farmers are often on the cutting edge (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33367332)

You do understand that ethanol has other uses besides being used as replacement for fossil fuels, and that the whole point of the part of his post you could be referring to was that you cannot get ethanol, polenta/starch and corn syrup from the same maize cob.

Re:High Fructose Corn Syrup (1)

Bayoudegradeable (1003768) | about 4 years ago | (#33367124)

Thank Mohammad/Jesus for High Fructose Corn Syrup. Our kids would be so damn skinny and frail without that fricken gem.

Re:Farmers are often on the cutting edge (2, Insightful)

twitcher101 (1712418) | about 4 years ago | (#33367258)

So are farmers smart enough to know that if you kill nematodes, you kill the soil and are therefore fully dependent on chemical companies if you want to keep farming? Are they smart enough to know that you should NEVER use this product? Most I have talked to lately insist its impossible to produce food without chemicals, which just isn't true. In fact, most studies show that the surpluses would be larger without chemicals limiting the environment. We might have to eat more than five crops and not use corn in everything (but then it isn't in ANY of my cookbooks, so why is corn syrup in all my food?). Unfortunately, your examples above of early adoption suggest that farmers go for "shiny" things, rather than useful tech. Try getting them to adopt precision fertilization using GPS, and they balk, because it isn't about the environment, its only about yield maps. So the shiny advert will convince them to make the soil into a barren substrate...

Re:Farmers are often on the cutting edge (1)

johnlenin1 (140093) | about 4 years ago | (#33367334)

Spot on comment, wish I had mod points today.

Re:Farmers are often on the cutting edge (1)

DrXym (126579) | about 4 years ago | (#33367402)

I expect you will find virtually all those advances were created by engineers and scientists, not farmers. Of course the farmer isn't stupid, and if some tech comes along which speeds up / automates / increases yield etc. then naturally they will want to use it.

Cool tech (5, Interesting)

wvmarle (1070040) | about 4 years ago | (#33366302)

Looking at this I was just thinking on how fast our technology moves.

15 years ago CRT screens were still the norm, 10 years ago they were still going strong against the flat screen competition. Now we have screens that are so flat and cheap that they can be added to a magazine page.

15 years ago playing video on your PC started to work, mostly. Not too high resolution and you're fine. Now we play video smoothly on our mobile phones. Video processors are now small enough to fit in a magazine page. The same for storage, even low res video requires a relatively large amount of memory.

15 years ago my simple mobile phone needed recharging of its bulky battery at least every two days, when not using it much. Now batteries have the capacity to run a video player, a small screen, for a significant period of time, all while being small enough to fit in a magazine page.

15 years ago I had a 120 MB hard disk in my computer, a quite reasonable size at the time. It served me well. Software came typically on small stacks of 1.44 MB floppy disks. Nowadays a magazine page can fit larger amounts of storage, at a mere fraction of the price.

It is simply absurd how fast this tech is moving these days. A video in a magazine page was pure science fiction at the time. The idea that you would go to a web page (that did exist already) and click on a link to watch a video without the need for a lengthy download.

We definitely live in exciting times for techies!

Re:Cool tech (1)

MORB (793798) | about 4 years ago | (#33366408)

...15 years ago a technology allowing one to browse news and read articles electronically began to make printed media obsolete.

...5 years ago the technology to embed videos inside of the above became popular.

Basically internet made this "embed a video into a paper magazine" crap obsolete 5 years ago, before it was even invented.

Excellent! (2, Interesting)

naich (781425) | about 4 years ago | (#33366342)

Sounds to me like a good source of cheap screens to hack and use with your favourite microcontroller.

Wasteful (1)

Trogre (513942) | about 4 years ago | (#33366650)

Tch tch

This may well be another nail in the coffin of print media. At the moment at least, by and large, any magazines you subscribe to can be chucked in a paper bin for later recycling. What is one meant to do with these monstrosities?

Re:Wasteful (1)

delinear (991444) | about 4 years ago | (#33367274)

Tear out the one offending page?

Re:Wasteful (1)

RoverDaddy (869116) | about 4 years ago | (#33367624)

I'd say you're right, except that I've seen how well my neighbors recycle (living in a US apartment complex). 1) Lots of recyclable stuff still gets tossed in the garbage. 2) The recycling that is done is often done carelessly (I find stuff in the recycling bins that absolutely doesn't belong there).

If this catches on, even if the paper still gets recycled, we'll have tons and tons of single-use LCD displays, batteries and circuit boards destined for landfill.

Effective but wasteful (1)

chocobanana (974767) | about 4 years ago | (#33366730)

Yes, this isn't interesting at all. It sure must be good at catching the attention of the reader which is one of the primary goals of advertising. But shouldn't this kind of technology be relegated to digital magazines? Why put expensive and environment damaging technology in such a thing as (most of the time) disposable media?

Boring (1, Insightful)

KritonK (949258) | about 4 years ago | (#33367206)

I wanted to watch the video on the magazine, for the geekiness of it, and was bored, watching the fancy graphics, while I was waiting for the name of the advertised product (which I have already forgotten, as the tech was more impressive than the name of an unknown product) to appear.

Now that I've seen what it's all about, and the novelty is lost, there is no way I am going to wait 45 seconds per page, to watch a <censored> video, while leafing through a magazine. In fact, I won't even notice there is a video, as it took a couple of seconds for the video to switch on, by which time I will have turned the page. If they cannot attract my attention with what's printed on the page, I am not going to see their ad!

This new technology does offer some interesting possibilities, though. Imagine, e.g., that I somehow get hold of my competitor's video, before it is published. I then create a video for my competing product, whose audio track is (inverse of competitor's audio track) + "competitor's products are useless" + (pitch for my product), then pay the magazine handsomely to publish my ad next to the competitor's, so that they are both activated when readers open the magazine at that page. Loads of fun!

Codec (1)

dimethylxanthine (946092) | about 4 years ago | (#33367616)

I wonder which video codec they decided upon. I would imagine they'd pick OGM or VP8 to (considerably) reduce overhead by avoiding shelling out to MPEG.

Pesticides always first? (1)

SharpFang (651121) | about 4 years ago | (#33367900)

Interestingly, the very first commercial in Polish TV after beginning of transformation towards capitalism was for Prusakolep, a bug bait with pesticide against the German cockroach, (Croton bug, Steam fly, Blattella germanica).
It wasn't all that much of a problem really and it being the first and only commercial on tv for quite a while (and run pretty frequently) it was pretty much leaving many people stumped, wtf is this about...

Will these be coming to Hustler? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33367974)

Just a thought.

Not the first ... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 4 years ago | (#33368264)

I don't think this is the first instance of this technology. I remember hearing about it last year. It was CBS and Pepsi.

It was discussed [wired.com] last [cnet.com] August [marketingpilgrim.com] .

This is now a year after the first people did this. I suspect Slashdot covered it then too.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>