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!

Steve Jobs' Idea For an Ad-Supported OS

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the hey-it-works-for-broadcast-tv dept.

Advertising 255

milbournosphere writes "It looks like Steve drew up an idea for an ad-supported OS. A patent was filed back in 2009 detailing how it was done. From the article: 'Rather than charge the normal upgrade price, which in those days was $99, he was thinking of shipping a second version of Mac OS 9 that would be given away for free — but would be supported instead by advertising. The theory was that this would pull in a ton of people who didn't normally upgrade because of the price, but Apple would still generate income through the advertising. And any time an owner of the free version wanted to get rid of the advertising, he or she could simply pay for the ad-free version. Steve's team had worked out the preliminary numbers the concept seemed financially sound.'"

cancel ×

255 comments

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

Excuse my French. (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39809859)

Fuck that shit.

Re:Excuse my French. (3, Funny)

sofar (317980) | more than 2 years ago | (#39810557)

EXACTLY

Let's just *always* give the OS away for free...!!! .... reminds me, what was that Linux thing again?

Re:Excuse my French. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39810901)

That would be the "thing" that doesn't have fucking ads built into it. I'm guessing being a Macfag you wouldn't be used to that kind of freedom so I understand your confusion.

Re:Excuse my French. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39810693)

Apples, apple juice, apple cider, vinegar,,,, age old natural progression,,, but any step can also jump straight to rot,,, as does this idea.

Re:Excuse my French. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39810769)

I know. I paid for my copy of Google in 2003, when they first made actually paying for their search product available - until then I was EVEN MORE furious than you.

Since 2003, I've been buying a new Google every 2-3 years. In all, I've paid for about 4 Googles.

As a paying customer, every time I look at my ad-free search results I get sick to my stomach thinking about how other people are seeing ads next to them. It's not about the money, it means nothing to me. FUCK THAT SHIT.

Re:Excuse my French. (3, Interesting)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 2 years ago | (#39810883)

Fuck that shit.

Couldn't you just block the ad server at the router/firewall level?

Would the OS fail to work if it could not download ads?

And not a single (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39809865)

was given...

Re:And not a single (1)

masternerdguy (2468142) | more than 2 years ago | (#39810219)

Man Jobs was worse than I thought. Not even M$ would do this.

Re:And not a single (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39810345)

And yet Google did.

Maybe Eric Schmidt read the patent.

Re:And not a single (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39810447)

Google have an ad supported OS? Pray tell..

Re:And not a single (4, Interesting)

ZeroSumHappiness (1710320) | more than 2 years ago | (#39810491)

Chrome OS -- it's designed to integrate with the Google ecosystem, whose purpose is advertising in exchange for services. It's a step removed, but it's the moral equivalent.

Re:And not a single (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39810551)

I'm hoping that Apple applied for the patent just to block Google from ever doing it. Jobs might have conceived of it, but he had the wisdom not to do it and now the idea sounds like something much more likely to get deployed by Google than Apple.

Re:And not a single (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39810587)

Man Jobs was worse than I thought. Not even M$ would do this.

Yes, Microsoft would never foist ad-supported software on its users [microsoft.com]

On the other hand, Apple has been foisting this on...well, nobody, since they decided not to go ahead with it.

Ad-Free OS vs App (-1)

Bigby (659157) | more than 2 years ago | (#39809875)

As we all know, an ad-supported OS is soooooooooooooo much different than an ad-supported application. It's Revolutionary!

Re:Ad-Free OS vs App (2)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#39809915)

Part of the patent is replacing ads in applications with ads that send money to Apple instead.

Re:Ad-Free OS vs App (1)

pitchingchris (2591965) | more than 2 years ago | (#39809967)

Please wait.. I can't load your text editor yet because I'm trying to load the ads up that you must view as part of the overall "user experience"

Re:Ad-Free OS vs App (2)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 2 years ago | (#39810135)

Or how about an ad-supported free computer? [pcworld.com]

Also, note the date on that article. Steve Jobs was way behind on this one.

Re:Ad-Free OS vs App (1)

ifiwereasculptor (1870574) | more than 2 years ago | (#39810885)

Well, it's like an app that launches apps. Cue "yo dawg i herd you like ad-supported apps so we put ad-supported apps in you ad-supported app so u can be bothered while u're being bothered".

Mac OS 9? (5, Informative)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | more than 2 years ago | (#39809885)

Forum post says Mac OS X. I don't think he'd get many takers for Mac OS 9, even if he was giving it away without ads.

Re:Mac OS 9? (4, Informative)

Anubis IV (1279820) | more than 2 years ago | (#39810639)

The news post says Mac OS 9 if you read it. The patent displayed OS X-specific stuff, but the idea was originally conceived back in the late '90s. They simply didn't patent it until much later, and by then it made sense to show it within the context of Mac OS X.

I'm surprised this is coming around again now, since it already made the rounds in Mac circles back when the patent was filed back in 2009, but a lot of these sort of fluff stories are circulating after the new Steve Jobs book debuted today. It's not really much of a story, since Apple is known for filing patents on every little thing they think of, the vast majority of which never come to fruition. For example, devices resembling laptops and iMacs that lack a display but have a slot in the side where you can insert a tablet-like device were patented a number of years back, even before the iPad existed.

This needs a patent? (1, Insightful)

BackwardPawn (1356049) | more than 2 years ago | (#39809887)

Steve Jobs came up with the idea of ad supported software, that you can pay for to remove the ads! Awesome! The man truely was a genius.

No, it didn't (1)

G3ckoG33k (647276) | more than 2 years ago | (#39810111)

"Steve Jobs came up with the idea of ad supported software, that you can pay for to remove the ads! Awesome! The man truely was a genius."

No, he only took it to a new level, and in a traditional Steve Jobs style - a lower level.

He was cheap.

Re:This needs a patent? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39810353)

Of course Jobs needed a patent - else Google would do it. All part of his plan to not make Android profitable.

That got a patent? Quel surprise! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39810375)

Steve Jobs came up with the idea of ad supported software, that you can pay for to remove the ads! Awesome!

Yes, I can see your tongue planted firmly in your cheek.

But it sounds more like Jobs sampled an old, old idea and adapted it. So he stole* it.

For example, the Opera browser did this in the 1990's and dropped it about a decade ago.

Some newspapers did this a hundred years ago.

GrokCo did it with the stone wheel back around the year SFA.

It was about as new as fire in 2009. No wonder the pre-historic farts curating the patent museum gave him a patent.

*The public calls it "sampling", but the hollydead shylock industry insists that it's stealing and their congress buys into that fabrication - so it must be stealing. By their measure, I stole every frigging word I utter.

Re:That got a patent? Quel surprise! (0)

BackwardPawn (1356049) | more than 2 years ago | (#39810743)

The sad part is, Apple will say they invented ad supported software, and a large subsection of the population will believe it. Then they'll back Apple as they enforce their patent so that only Apple computers can use ad supported software. Or, even worse, Apple will get proceeds from every ad placed in a software product. Just to be clear, I didn't RTFA, but I would only be a little bit surprised if the patent was written broadly enough to make that happen.

Evil, with a capital E (5, Insightful)

DontBlameCanada (1325547) | more than 2 years ago | (#39809893)

That's a classic bait n' switch. How usable would an OS that pops ads all the time be? What if, after installing, they upped the ad frequency etc? Would the ads be embedded or fetched over the network? Could you downgrade to your previously legally obtained, ad-free, OS without losing all your work?

This isn't an Apple bash or even a Steve Jobs bash. That idea is pure, unadulterated, marketing evilness.

Re:Evil, with a capital E (3, Informative)

Sarten-X (1102295) | more than 2 years ago | (#39810101)

From TFA:

Jobs envisioned the ad-supported version of Mac OS 9 displaying a 60-second commercial from a "premium" company at startup, with the ads occasionally being automatically swapped out for new ones over the Internet.

Sounds like it'd be pretty darned usable, and I personally wouldn't notice much, since I reboot once every few months (usually due to moving cords or power failure)

Re:Evil, with a capital E (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39810299)

All I got from this post was "No, Steve, shit IN my mouth! I love it!"

Re:Evil, with a capital E (2)

Pope (17780) | more than 2 years ago | (#39810301)

You'd be rebooting at least once a day with MacOS 9, even at the best of times you'd get memory fragmentation that resulted in not enough contiguous free memory to use. A real PITA, but it's what we had back then.

Re:Evil, with a capital E (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 2 years ago | (#39810377)

Not if you didn't run Adobe apps....

Re:Evil, with a capital E (4, Insightful)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 2 years ago | (#39810213)

How is it bait and switch if the choices are very clear up front?

It's no different to the current model offered by a lot of software, especially in the mobile space, where a paid-for ad-free app exists in parallel with its almost-identical free version that only differs by showing ads. The only difference I see is that it applies to the whole OS instead of just a single app.

It's also similar to the TV model - watch the show for free over the air with ads in the middle or wait and buy the DVD.

As a marketing tactic it's pretty run-of-the-mill.

Re:Evil, with a capital E (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39810325)

"How usable would an OS that pops ads all the time be? "

Depends on the Ad-blocker.

Re:Evil, with a capital E (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39810369)

OH YEAH because ALL ads are popups. Are you serious?

All it could be is a banner ad on a taskbar, probably.
Maybe a few text ads on menu space that isn't used.
At the worst (somehow), personalized ads.
Considering how so many people find Steam acceptable despite the fact it pops up ads for new games and sales after games finish, I see nothing wrong even if there was one after a specific period of inactivity that only happens once a day, more if a large period of inactivity.

If I was poor out the ass and couldn't afford an OS update every few years, I'd happily go this way.
It's not like I give 10 craps what Coca Cola know about me, or that Subway know I like Cheese and Chicken.

Such products would likely succeed a great deal in this day and age with so many people using computers to communicate, organize and consume, and, you know, people who don't give a crap that some random company knows they like cola or cheese and chicken.
No, you are paranoid, I don't give a damn. You can repeat it over and over again, I really couldn't give less of a damn even if I had infinite damns. Get help.

Re:Evil, with a capital E (2)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | more than 2 years ago | (#39810371)

Ignoring your personal speculation about increasing the ad frequency, how is this a bait-and-switch?

Sadly it would have probably been successful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39809899)

Especially in the paste a sheet of paper over the offending bit of screen department. People will do crazy things for the perception of saving a few bucks.

dumb idea (5, Insightful)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 2 years ago | (#39809911)

Nothing cheapens a product like plastering it with ads even if you can get rid of them by paying.

Re:dumb idea (1, Insightful)

avandesande (143899) | more than 2 years ago | (#39809935)

like Slashdot.....

Re:dumb idea (4, Insightful)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 2 years ago | (#39809965)

As the owner of an ad-supported Kindle, I couldn't disagree more. The only ads are at the bottom of the main menu screen (where all of the available books in your library are listed) and the "screen saver". Totally unobtrusive.

Re:dumb idea (1)

CosaNostra Pizza Inc (1299163) | more than 2 years ago | (#39810141)

As the owner of an ad-supported Kindle, I couldn't disagree more. The only ads are at the bottom of the main menu screen (where all of the available books in your library are listed) and the "screen saver". Totally unobtrusive.

Well, I have the same kindle but without the adds. I've heard the adds only show up on the main screen, not while you're actually reading a book. How can you be sure Jobs intended to use a similar method of unobtrusive adds?

Re:dumb idea (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 2 years ago | (#39810495)

It's not that expensive in the first place so while I'm sure it's not the worst thing in the world it's something I prefer not to have. Perhaps one of the only bad things to come out of the internet and the freeness of everything is people are more accepting to have their lives invaded by corporations. I'd rather demand a decent wage than get free stuff.

Re:dumb idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39810933)

Well, maybe to you. It is exactly those ads that made me decide to buy a Nook instead.

Re:dumb idea (1)

localman57 (1340533) | more than 2 years ago | (#39809969)

Nothing cheapens a product like plastering it with ads even if you can get rid of them by paying.

See the Kindle for a concrete example.. Every time I go to my parent's house and see their Kindle sitting there with a Visa ad on the front, it makes me feel nauseous.

Re:dumb idea (4, Insightful)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39810321)

>>>see their Kindle sitting there with a Visa ad on the front, it makes me feel nauseous.

Wow.
You're weird. A still photo of the Visa card makes you sick??? Ridiculous. Besides the ads are actually more entertaining than the non-ad version (boring & very repetitive screensavers of authors). At least the ads gave me ~$70 on initial purchase, plus another $10 in free gift cards.

Advertising has also given me ~40 years of free television, 30 years of free talk or musicradio, free webpages instead of paypages, cheap $1 magazines, and so on. Free is better than spending ~$5000 a year to get the same level of service. (IMHO)

Re:dumb idea (0)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 2 years ago | (#39810519)

Yeah because the idea of having a photo of Visa in your home is completely normal. I assume you think it's acceptable to spend all night arguing about why your favourite corporation is better than someone else's.

Re:dumb idea (3, Informative)

Dog-Cow (21281) | more than 2 years ago | (#39810659)

If you're a normal person with the odd magazine and/or newspaper lying around, it is completely normal. If you're a stuck-up slashtard, you may have difficulties with the idea.

Re:dumb idea (2)

localman57 (1340533) | more than 2 years ago | (#39810763)

Advertising has also given me ~40 years of free television, 30 years of free talk or musicradio, free webpages instead of paypages, cheap $1 magazines, and so on. Free is better than spending ~$5000 a year to get the same level of service. (IMHO)

It makes me sick because I see the future. The difference is that the Kindle advertising was always on. Even when you weren't reading. This is different than your TV, where you accept ads intermixed with the content. You shut off the content on your TV, and the ads go with them. Extrapolate the Kindle model to one where every connected device with a screen in your house is displaying advertising all the time that it has power. You're getting dystopian at that point.

Re:dumb idea (1)

Cinder6 (894572) | more than 2 years ago | (#39810899)

Ever seen a magazine? Their ads are persistent. They don't even need power!

Re:dumb idea (4, Funny)

smooth wombat (796938) | more than 2 years ago | (#39810475)

it makes me feel nauseous.

To quote Sheldon:

You also made a common grammatical mistake, you said nauseous when you meant nauseated. But go on.

Re:dumb idea (1)

localman57 (1340533) | more than 2 years ago | (#39810807)

Thanks!

Re:dumb idea (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39810195)

It's worked for TV. And radio. Even the internet (netzero). Sure I could pay ~$300 a year for three channels (BBC1,2,3) like my cousins overseas, but why? I get 40+ channels completely free and let the corporations carry the burden of operating cost.

Ditto radio. Ditto internet. Even my kindle comes with ads (reduces cost by about half).

Of course there are also examples where it failed, like the "paid-to-surf" companies, but they never provided anything of value for most people.

Re:dumb idea (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 2 years ago | (#39810561)

You don't have to pay for TV in other countries. In fact you can watch the BBC without a licence thanks to the internet and yes in some cases ads aren't *that* bad but where ever possible I rather pay for things and keep the advertising out of my life. I'd rather work on getting a better wage than having free crap.

Re:dumb idea (1)

msauve (701917) | more than 2 years ago | (#39810343)

"Nothing cheapens a product like plastering it with ads even if you can get rid of them by paying."

Unless it's paying for the ads. Really, if someone's going to wear "Abercrombie" across their chest, the shirt should be free.

Re:dumb idea (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 2 years ago | (#39810621)

I'd agree and wouldn't wear anything Abercrombie myself but the idea of buying an expensive computer and then having ads popping up because I upgraded the OS just doesn't make sense. Sure I can understand Jobs was more concerned with keeping people up to date whether it be for their good or to stop having to support older operating systems but a Macbook isn't NetZero or something like that. It just wouldn't be right.

Bad summary (5, Informative)

broken_chaos (1188549) | more than 2 years ago | (#39809957)

The summary is confusing and inaccurate. The patent was filed in 2008 (not 2009), and the reference to MacOS 9 was referring to a piece in a book ("Insanely Simple: The Obsession That Drives Apple's Success" by Ken Segall, according to the linked article) that suggests that the idea for the patent originated in 1999 (not 2008 or 2009) with Steve Jobs -- back when OS9 was heading towards release, making the reference to OS9 actually make sense.

All this gleamed from clicking the sole link in the /. post, spending 15 seconds skimming it, and having a very basic knowledge of recent OS history. Proofreading, please?

Re:Bad summary (3, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#39810037)

You're hired.

Re:Bad summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39810429)

Your starting pay is $0, and it'll take a minimum of 4 months for the Slashdot IT to give you the permissions needed to do the job.

Re:Bad summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39810185)

It doesn't matter much when the idea originated. The patent was filed in 2008. Before 1999, there was already ad supported software. There were lots of ad supported free internet access and much trial software; some with nag screens, some with limited features, and some with ads. How is putting ads in an OS to make it free diffeent from putting ads in any other software to make that free.

Re:Bad summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39810615)

All this gleamed...
...
Proofreading, please?

Ouch, the irony! It burns!

Genius! (1)

wtoconnor (221184) | more than 2 years ago | (#39809959)

Who would have thought of such a thing but Steve Jobs. Even from the grave he is still amazing us. Provide stuff for free using advertising - I can't get over it.

Advertising is wrong (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39809963)

It's come to this? Advertising permeating everything we do because it in some way makes what we're doing more affordable?

We all pay the cost of advertising. The fact that the majority of the Web is ad-supported is depressing.

Re:Advertising is wrong (3, Insightful)

Altus (1034) | more than 2 years ago | (#39810293)

I suppose you would rather pay cash for every web page you visit?

Re:Advertising is wrong (2)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 2 years ago | (#39810747)

I suppose you would rather pay cash for every web page you visit?

Holy fuck yes.

If there were a system that efficiently and anonymously let me pay ~0.01 cents per web page viewed I would take that in a heart beat. User targetted advertisements are filling the role of micropayments but they come with all kinds of hidden costs. Civilization would be much better off if the net were not so utterly dependent on the advertising financial model. I'm not saying eliminate it, I'm saying we need alternatives.

Re:Advertising is wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39810547)

We all pay the cost of advertising.

How ironic.

What "cost" do you pay, exactly? Your information? You are but a simple number, they don't care about you at any personal level, even for personalized ads. You are assigned to groups in those.
I assume you'd be happy to pay for all your website usage?
Paying twice to internet? Doing it wrong. Everyone realized that ages ago.

People who abuse ads? Don't go to their sites, block it at network level. Inform others not to go there.
This is both the webmasters as well as advertisers too, such as those who make eye-shattering GIFs with a trillion FPS.

a slight editorial modification of the patent (1)

hAckz0r (989977) | more than 2 years ago | (#39809983)

cat patent.txt | sed -e 's/ad-supported/Chineese Water Torture/g' > /dev/null

Re:a slight editorial modification of the patent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39810681)

Do you really need to invoke cat there?

Only Google (1)

Severus Snape (2376318) | more than 2 years ago | (#39810013)

could pull such an idea off, they originally tried it with Android and got nowhere, albeit in the mobile industry they had carriers to deal with too. They will probably try it again in a couple of years with Chrome OS, I remain sceptical it can work. Apple didn't and still doesn't have the muscle in the advertisement business to do such a thing.

Is it just me or... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39810021)

The more I read about Jobs, the more he sounds like a Supervillian from a B-movie? Maybe its just the black turtlenecks...

Already done - equaled fail (5, Informative)

future assassin (639396) | more than 2 years ago | (#39810025)

There were companies in the late 90's and early 2000 that were doing this with PC's and free internet. How soon we forget. Eudora or Opera anyone?

Re:Already done - equaled fail (1)

ZeroSumHappiness (1710320) | more than 2 years ago | (#39810117)

Mod plus 1000, software patents suck.

Seriously, the first thing I thought was, "Didn't Opera do that?"

Re:Already done - equaled fail (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#39810333)

References here [cnet.com] and here. [crn.com]

Re:Already done - equaled fail (1)

future assassin (639396) | more than 2 years ago | (#39810411)

I was working at an ISP at the time and fuck did I have a lot of support calls from people who tried the free dialup and all it did was fuck their computers right up. Got to love the customer blaming you for dial up not working while their computer is infested with free internet software.

So they make money twice? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39810029)

First when they are paid for the ads, then again when the hapless consumer pays the full 99$? If at least the upgrade price was pro-rata with the amount of ad revenue Apple made in the meantime...

Re:So they make money twice? (1)

ZeroSumHappiness (1710320) | more than 2 years ago | (#39810171)

If rollback is simple I don't see this as a bad thing. Who wouldn't have killed for an ad-supported Vista or ME trial before buying the upgrade?

Basically, Apple would have been paid to let you trial their new OS. I think this is a good happy medium.

Re:So they make money twice? (1)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 2 years ago | (#39810253)

And this is different from the current mobile app model/ad-supported shareware model how?

Intellectual process (4, Insightful)

Lexx Greatrex (1160847) | more than 2 years ago | (#39810053)

1. Put adverts in OS
2. Call it an "upgrade", not adware
3. Patent it
.
.
4. Threaten all add supported software makers with lawsuits (planned)
.
.
5. Make unfathomable wealth by not actually inventing or even implementing anything (goal)

Re:Intellectual process (-1, Troll)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 2 years ago | (#39810441)

not actually inventing or even implementing anything

says the guy who's never produced a single piece of hardware used worldwide.

Re:Intellectual process (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39810507)

Oh look, another Macfag who's still wanking over Job's cancerous, rotting corpse. He're's a nice joke for you, what do Steve Jobs and Adolf Hitler have in common? They're both dead fucking nazi's.

Re:Intellectual process (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39810663)

No, it's: says the guy that's still alive and is unlikely to die from a god-complex after trying to cure serious medical conditions with pseudo science claptrap.

Jobs never invented anything, Mr. Myopic Zealot. His employees did, or rather, they used catalogs from which to buy all the components made by companies that have real R&D and engineers, and not wankstains that claim curved corners are their own invention, and bolt on colorful icons to open source software.

How do you know it's his idea? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39810109)

How do you know for sure it's his idea?

It's been my experience that in any company of over 30 people, the top guy's idea really wasn't his. That he just got to call it his, because of being where he is in the company.

Jobs was 10 years too late - "freepc.com" (4, Informative)

Animats (122034) | more than 2 years ago | (#39810127)

Back in 1999, there was freepc.com. [tweney.com] They didn't just give away the OS - they gave you a whole computer. Applications could only use a 640 x 480 area of the screen, which was a common monitor size back then. But FreePC shipped with a bigger monitor and display card. The rest of the screen was devoted to ads.

Like most web sites today. And phones. And tablets...

They were just ahead of their time.

Re:Jobs was 10 years too late - "freepc.com" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39810269)

This. The idea had been hashed time and again by other outlets. Jobs could have filed a dozen patents on the idea, but that doesn't mean he came up with it.

Re:Jobs was 10 years too late - "freepc.com" (2)

Carrot007 (37198) | more than 2 years ago | (#39810625)

> 1999
>640 x 480 area of the screen, which was a common monitor size back then

Bah. Kids.

This size was common in 1994 maybe.

1024*768 was pretty much the standard in 1999. Though a lot of idiots may have ran at 800*600 no one ran at 640 * 480 unless they were still running windows 3.0!

Re:Jobs was 10 years too late - "freepc.com" (1)

supremebob (574732) | more than 2 years ago | (#39810725)

Not really... Even back in 1999, 1024x768 on a 17" flat screen CRT was the most common screen resolution.

I thought it already had ads (5, Funny)

Cro Magnon (467622) | more than 2 years ago | (#39810157)

Everytime I turn on my Mac, I get that picture of an apple.

I can see the future now... (1)

dehole (1577363) | more than 2 years ago | (#39810201)

No longer are their options to remove Ad's from your OS. Doing so is actually against the Law. This is one step towards that direction.

If its like TV (1)

shadowofwind (1209890) | more than 2 years ago | (#39810231)

It would only be a matter of time before we have to pay AND see ads in the OS.

But what if? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39810241)

But what if they give away this free version of the OS and then double the price of the pay OS?

Obama ate a dog. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39810251)

Obama ate a dog.

Volunteering is one thing (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 2 years ago | (#39810305)

My problem is the tray apps and services that are unavoidable that turn my machine into an advertising platform.

Seems like a worthwhile idea... (2)

rastoboy29 (807168) | more than 2 years ago | (#39810319)

except for the "patented" part.

Another idea (1)

daniel78 (2563977) | more than 2 years ago | (#39810373)

How about an OS that doesn't cost money AND it doesn't have ads either. That would be pretty cool. Surprised no one has thought of this.

Re:Another idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39810589)

How about an OS that doesn't cost money AND it doesn't have ads either. That would be pretty cool. Surprised no one has thought of this.

Well, at least no one will patent "your" idea :)

If that patent was granted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39810393)

The clerk should be fired, end up homeless, broke and hairless.

To patent an idea... (1)

CapineiroCapaz (2491432) | more than 2 years ago | (#39810461)

is it possible?

Why Not Limited Time Ads? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39810643)

It seems to me that an improvement to this model would be to have the OS upgrade be ad supported until your ad views paid for the $99 price tag of the upgrade. That way, the OS company gets their money, you work off your OS cost by viewing ads, and you don't have to view ads for an infinite duration.

No surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39810709)

Apple has always tried to steal things from Android to catch up.

If You Think I'm Going To Reinstall It For Dad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39810717)

after it gets bricked by viruses like I have to support all the other operating systems for friends and relatives, you've got another think coming.

That's really patentable? (1)

puppetman (131489) | more than 2 years ago | (#39810867)

As in, there is no prior art for giving software away for free (or for a reduced price) based on forcing the user to view the occasional advertisement?

I am surprised Apple isn't using this "patent" to go after the ad-supported Kindle in an effort to get the upper hand in content (especially after Apple's smack-down on price fixing for e-books)....

how about (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39810877)

i just give you a wall in my bedroom so I can fall asleep to car insurance promos. sheesh.

wait...i already do

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>