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!

Google Envisions Free Cell Phones For All

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the i-have-no-friends-you-insensitive-clod dept.

164

Salvance writes "Google's CEO Eric Schmidt envisions a day when all cell phones are free if the user agrees to watch targeted ads. While he provides no specific plans for Google to give away phones, the implication is that he expects such moves in the future given Google's current pilot successes with delivering text ads on phones." From the article: "Schmidt also said his company was working on how to allow users to maintain basic control of their personal data. Currently, Google stores consumer data on hundreds of thousands of its own computers in order to provide additional services to individual users. The company is looking to allow consumers to export their Web search history or e-mail archives and move them to other sites, if they so choose."

cancel ×

164 comments

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

When your only tool is a hammer (5, Interesting)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821006)

Everything looks like a nail.

When your only revenue is advertisments, everything looks like sticky eyeballs.

Re:When your only tool is a hammer (5, Funny)

joshier (957448) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821028)

Are you saying... We are all nails living in a hammer world?? AHHHHHHHHH!!!!

Re:When your only tool is a hammer (5, Funny)

FirienFirien (857374) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821198)

It could be worse... it could just constantly be hammer time...

Re:When your only tool is a hammer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16822428)

Alright Stop !!

Re:When your only tool is a hammer (1)

grammar fascist (239789) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821400)

Are you saying... We are all nails living in a hammer world?? AHHHHHHHHH!!!!

I don't think you read that right. It's that our sticky eyeballs are hammers for Google's Nails of Advertisement. Or something like that.

Anybody else here think eyeballs wouldn't make the greatest hammers?

Re:When your only tool is a hammer (4, Interesting)

arun_s (877518) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821036)

That's okay. It'll probably take less than a week after release before the adblockers come around. Its survival of the fittest from there. The gaudy flash advertisers will be first to go, and I probably wouldn't mind the less intrusive ones if I was getting a phone for free.

Re:When your only tool is a hammer (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16821372)

probably it relies on requests received from the device. if no request is received, the user will lose minutes. what if they decide to quiz you once in a while?

Re:When your only tool is a hammer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16821470)

When you're only tool is a hammer... ...use it to smash the f***ing phone that keeps showing you adds?

Re:When your only tool is a hammer (0, Flamebait)

hauntingthunder (985246) | more than 7 years ago | (#16822378)

Its so cute when Americans try get to grips with this mobile malarkey (cue stifled Nordic giggles) Must be a big change from  having a slave^h^h^H^H lad carry the messages around in  cleft stick;

Eric Have you actually used a modern mobile phone I don't look at the screen when I'me making a call I just you know punch the damm number in  and wait for it to ring.

They already tried mobiles funded by audio adds which failed so why is video going to work.

Call the Free??? (3, Insightful)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821022)

What's your time worth? What does a call cost?

Right now,phone calls don't cost much. With all the competitive pressures they'll just come down. Let's say your life is worth $60/hour or $1/minute. How much of your life are you prepared to throw away to get that free phone call?

Re:Call the Free??? (3, Insightful)

kfg (145172) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821122)

My life is priceless. Therefore what I am willing to trade it for; and what I might object to trading it for, might be a bit at varience with someone who thinks of their time as worth $60/hr.

KFG

Re:Call the Free??? (1)

Per Abrahamsen (1397) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821396)

> My life is priceless.

Everybody has a price. You may not know yours yet.

How much money are you willing and able to pay for one hour more life? That's your price.

Re:Call the Free??? (1)

FST777 (913657) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821418)

Then my life is worthless. Still my life is priceless to me, I just don't value time. Time spent with friends is infinitely worth more than time spent working for a crappy boss (if I had more time I would think of a better analogy, and no, I'm not willing to pay for that).

Time is more a currency for me than the other way around. As such, I'm not willing to wait for ads when I want to call a friend.

Re:Call the Free??? (1)

dissolved (887190) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821420)

I think you are getting confused between "priceless" and "worthless".

Re:Call the Free??? (2, Insightful)

kfg (145172) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821446)

How much money are you willing and able to pay for one hour more life? That's your price.

I am perfectly capable of conceiving of situations in which I would be willing to simply "toss away" all that remains of my life for no money at all. I can even conceive of situations in which I might pay someone to end my life.

I do not measure the value of either my time or my actions with a balance sheet, nor do I hold my mere life, in and of itself, to be the highest value.

In the long run we are all dead. Make your life worth something by dying well.

And you are in the process of dying right now.

KFG

Re:Call the Free??? (1)

oliverthered (187439) | more than 7 years ago | (#16822348)

IF I was in a hospital with tubes comming out of my nose, on tonnes of drugs sill in pain and not looking like I would survive I'd want the plug to be pulled.

How much would you pay for another hour of that?

Re:Call the Free??? (1)

cryptoluddite (658517) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821398)

No that's not why these phones are so bad. You see, it isn't really your choice at all whether to get an ad-phone. Once a lot of people have a 'free' phone paid for by advertising the market for paid phones will be much less, so your choice will either be an 'annoy me' phone or a really expensive one with lots of features you don't even want (but maybe some CEOs want). If anything even paid phones will be like Cable where you pay *and* you get ads.

money, money, MON-EEEEE (1)

zogger (617870) | more than 7 years ago | (#16822342)

Glad you brought up cable TV. I actually attended one of those lost in the mists of time townhall meetings when a cable company was pitching their wares, and I distinctly heard them mentioning about how there would be "no commercials" if they got their monopoly to string up cable.

Once ad supported phones hit, eventually they will all go to ads, inevitable, unless you agree to "opt out" and pay more, that's my prediction anyway.

In some respects, breaking up the old phone company has worked out in the long run, in other aspects it is still pretty closed, like try to get a non officially blessed phone activated by your local carrier, chances are they will just say "no", can't/won't do that. We've seen any number of articles and posts here about how the government lets them de-tune and dumb down phones and then lock them up so you can't do with them what you want to do and be forced to go through their expensive "features" list. Sure, there's a gray area and warez to try and get around some of those feature locks, but that's what it is, gray area.

Re:Call the Free??? (2, Funny)

aplusjimages (939458) | more than 7 years ago | (#16822184)

I can see it now. A consumer with a Google Phone sees a murder or robbery and dials 911. Instead of getting an emergency operator immediately, the consumer sits through a couple of ads for CSI. And depending on their location, they might get CSI: Miami, CSI: Las Vegas, or the CSI in New York. Hell even Heroes might come up with a tag line like, "Be your own hero."

Re:Call the Free??? (3, Funny)

Meatloaf Surprise (1017210) | more than 7 years ago | (#16822424)

Actually, I hope ads play during a conversation. Say, call your friend and tell him to pick up a case of Pepsi, and all of the sudden you and your friend hear a chime and an ad for Pepsi starts streaming to both of your phones.

Or maybe the cellphones they're making have the same sensors as the Wii remote and all of the sudden a holographic ad appears in front of you to PUNCH THE MONKEY AND WIN A FREE IPOD

X1 data traffic charges (2, Interesting)

msobkow (48369) | more than 7 years ago | (#16822290)

Never mind your time, the whole approach neglects the outrageous fees some telcos associate with data vs voice traffic. At the rate I get billed for data transfers, it would be far, far cheaper to buy a cell phone every six month than it would be to pay for the data transfers of advertising.

Especially if it goes beyond SMS ads.

Re:Call the Free??? (1)

Eivind (15695) | more than 7 years ago | (#16822324)

Doesn't work out like that.

Your life is priceless -- but this doesn't imply that you're not willing to sell some of your time for any price.

$60/hour is ridicolously high for selling time for most people. That corresponds to a yearly wage of over $100.000 (after taxes), which is something like 4 times what the average American *actually* earns.

But you're rigth, phone-calls are pretty darned cheap. I call for about $20/month, which means getting that for free is worth less than 1 hour/month. So, to answer your question, less than 3 minutes/day. So, for me, watching a 30-second comercial and get the phone-call free would be rational, while a 2-minute comercial definitely wouldn't be.

Even more rational though, would be *not* watching the comercial, and still get the phone-call for free. How are they gonna figure out if I actually watch the crap or not ?

Re:Call the Free??? (1)

kibbylow (257730) | more than 7 years ago | (#16822376)

A few years ago, a beer company had a free long-distance promotion called labatt blue line [wikipedia.org] , where you had to listen to a 20 or 30 second ad before making your call.

While I never really used the service, I did have one friend that was willing to spend the time to used it.

I guess the point is, while you value you time, there will always be others that are willing to spend the time to save a buck.

Ads on phones? (4, Interesting)

LokiSnake (795582) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821046)

For a (smart)phone used for web communications, I can understand how they'll target ads, but for a phone that is only used for voice communications, how can targeted ads be implemented? There has been a trend of Google venturing into print, TV, and radio ads, and those can be done successfully through advertisers bidding for related spots on each medium, since newspapers/periodicals have separate sections, and TV and radio have set programming, but what about voice communications? Will they target ads by looking at your contact information? Or perhaps capture keywords in your spoken words? I doubt that, since they will never do any evil, but how else would this work (without text to analyze)?

Re:Ads on phones? (1)

mikerozh (710568) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821338)

In a few years every other phone will be smart phone.

Re:Ads on phones? (4, Interesting)

supersat (639745) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821344)

Three words: location, location, location.

Carriers can already determine your phone's location (thanks to the Wireless E911 [wikipedia.org] mandate), and third-party companies like Navizon [navizon.com] are already beginning to do the same thing independently of carriers.

Now, imagine you're Google, and you own the service. You notice that it's lunch time and the user hasn't stopped for lunch, but they're near a fast food advertiser. You could send an SMS with a coupon to the user.

Now, I don't know that they'll necessarily follow this model, but there's plenty of things to analyze and target without being much more invasive than current carriers.

Re:Ads on phones? (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821550)

Oh, you just need to put your name and address on the registration form, they'll cross-link it to your Google search history, Google video watching, Google email, Google ...

Just the "device" ? (4, Insightful)

kihjin (866070) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821048)

I could be wrong, but it seems this only means that you would get the device for "free," not the service. This is hardly a revolutionary idea; cellphone providers have been "giving" away devices for free (along with those nasty catch-22's) for ages.

This is not to say I'd go long with this anyway. I'd be very annoyed if my phone beeped every 10 minutes, only to discover that I've received an advertisement.

What the hell (5, Insightful)

jlarocco (851450) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821050)

Am I the only person who hates advertisements? I don't want to see ads while I browse the internet. I don't want to see ads while I'm watching movies or TV. I don't want to hear ads on the radio. And I sure as hell don't want ads on my cell phone.

Charge me for your product or service, then leave me the fuck alone.

Re:What the hell (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16821118)

Am I the only person who hates advertisements?

No, there are at least two of us. I hate them too, for ads rot one's brain. That's why I find Adblock [mozilla.org] such an irreplaceable extension.

Re:What the hell (4, Insightful)

Wizard of OS (111213) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821126)

Isn't that the reason that you can:
- still buy a mobile phone that doesn't have advertisements?
- get pay-tv where you can watch movies without interruption (at least here in the netherlands)
- become a slashdot subscriber and NOT see the ads anymore.

This is a new businessmodel, for those of us who don't want to pay for the product or service but instead want to view ads. If you don't like it, don't use it. There are (and will be) plenty alternatives for you.

You're lucky (1)

Rix (54095) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821230)

In most places, the only reliable way to get advertisment free tv is by bittorrent.

And you wonder why it accounts for 30% of all net traffic...

Re:What the hell (3, Informative)

dissy (172727) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821312)

> get pay-tv where you can watch movies without interruption (at least here in the netherlands)

Yes, not in the USA really.

Our pay-per-view tv still has ads most of the time, thou fortunatly not interrupting the show, just at the begining, and sometimes at the end.

Even when you go and buy a DVD, there are generally ads packed at the start, and frequently set so you can't skip them.

Technically downloading here isn't suppost to be illegal, but i fear it soon will be, in addition to distributing and copying which already is illegal (regarding bittorrent downloaded shows, where you upload as well) and ripping a DVD to remove the ads (or atleast change it so they can be skipped) is definatly illegal.

Of course a large portion of us don't care about the fact its illegal, and do it anyway, but that's the only way to get ad free movies and shows these days in the US.

Yeay USA :/

Re:What the hell (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821852)

Whatever. The adds on HBO/Showtime/etc. are pretty much exclusively for their content(so they are telling you about what you bought, not trying to get you to buy something), and are there as filler so that movie start times fall at more even times, which people watching other programming on television likely prefer. They are ads, but they aren't anything like any other advertising on tv. The adds on pay-per-view are quite similar, mostly filler. Even better, they only need to be ignored once per program that you want to watch.

I would imagine that the channel that the gp is talking about is exactly the same.

Re:What the hell (2, Interesting)

IcePop456 (575711) | more than 7 years ago | (#16822002)

Yes pay movie, but I do pay for cable TV ($50) and still get bombarded with commercials. Yes satellite radio is commercial free, but not all stations.

I pay taxes and tolls, yet there are still advertisements on the highway. Granted many are probably installed on private property.

Free with ads may be the new model, but the old one has certainly been updated with "you pay far less because ads cover some portion of the cost (aka profit)".

Re:What the hell (1)

stonertom (831884) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821274)

I do believe you are correct that you shouldn't HAVE to look at ads, however having a service provided to you with the only cost being to avoid looking at ads is brilliant. Think of free newspapers, TV (not that $ky crap, but normal TV) and most of the net. Think of your morning paper, would you pay £35 to have a quick, ad free read on the train?

Re:What the hell (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16821428)

having a service provided to you with the only cost being to avoid looking at ads is brilliant. Think of [...] TV

Given that later in your post you use £35 as a suggested price, I assume you're in the UK. So you're not getting free TV. You're paying for the BBC channels, even if you don't watch them.

Of course, ad-haters love the BBC, which doesn't have any ads. Except all the constant advertisements for other BBC products and services.

Re:What the hell (1)

whyloginwhysubscribe (993688) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821318)

I don't mind when I'm getting something for free, and those ads are unobtrusive. Some of the ads on TV in the UK are better than the shows! I read the free paper on the train, so can't complain about the adverts can I? However, it riles me when I rent a DVD and can't fast forward the adverts. If I've paid to watch something, I should not have to watch the adverts!

Re:What the hell (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16822550)

Only on Slashdot would cloying tripe like this be modded insightful.
Why don't you try having an original thought for a change?

It won't work (2, Insightful)

VincenzoRomano (881055) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821058)

It didn't work with landline phone and it won't work with cell phones!

What kind of company? (5, Insightful)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821068)

Which reveals in stark relief what sensible people have been saying for a while - Google isn't a search company, or a technology company - it's an advertising agency.

Will the well dry up? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16821070)

I think that by exposing everyone to advertisments and commercials people are becoming mute to it. I myself filter all commercials up to the point that it is no more than noise.
Agreed, advertisers find new anoying ways to advertise and schout louder, but I wouldn't be surprised that society will reach a point where commercials no longer have any effect.
How many companies will fall that have their entire income based on commercials?

people are becoming mute to it ... (2, Insightful)

pedantic bore (740196) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821282)

It's relatively easy when the medium is passive, like TV.

The next time your phone rings, however, try not answering. You'll reflexively pick it up anyway. You've been programmed to.

This has the potential to be astonishingly annoying to people like me, who use their cell phones for business and are acclimated to the idea that when the phone rings, it's important.

Re:people are becoming mute to it ... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16821326)

Hate to break it to you, but at least 50% of the time when my cell rings, I don't answer it. Sometimes I'm just busy, other times I'll look at who's calling and decide I don't really want to talk to them. As for the landline, I have an answering machine and I screen my calls in almost exactly the same way. Just because the phone rings, doesn't mean I have any obligation to answer it. I have friends who are slaves to their phones, and it just amazes me...

Re:people are becoming mute to it ... (1)

pedantic bore (740196) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821596)

How you use your phone is your business. No insult intended, but you're living in a different world. When my cell phone rings, it's important (or sometimes a wrong number). I don't give my cell phone number to people I don't want to talk to. (why would I?)

However, note that you agree with my point -- when your cell phone rings, you look at it. You don't need to answer it; it's cheaper for them if you don't. Congradulations, you're their target demographic.

Re:people are becoming mute to it ... (1)

EvilIdler (21087) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821414)

Speak for yourself. When my phone rings, I look closely at the calling number before I
*consider* picking it up. Time of day, mood, whether I'm in a noisy place or playing a
game are all factors. Plus my hate for the caller, of course :)

Re:people are becoming mute to it ... (1)

pedantic bore (740196) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821618)

See comment on sibling post...

You carefully look at the calling number. And while you're doing that, they're showing you an advertisement. All they want you to do is look. They don't care if you answer the phone, they just care that they got you to dig it out of your purse to look at it, so they could show you an ad.

Re:people are becoming mute to it ... (1)

EvilIdler (21087) | more than 7 years ago | (#16822432)

I don't have a purse, and someone phoning me won't show me any ads.
Were you thinking of SMS spam? I think that's also illegal where I live :)

Re:people are becoming mute to it ... (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821616)

If 90% of your calls were ads you would sooner or later stop picking up the phone, too.

Re:people are becoming mute to it ... (1)

cheater512 (783349) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821858)

I highly doubt Google would actually ring your phone to deliver ads.
That breaks their "Do no evil" policy and noone would use it.

spam has the answer (1)

mangu (126918) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821984)

by exposing everyone to advertisements and commercials people are becoming mute to it. I myself filter all commercials up to the point that it is no more than noise.


That's why they are inventing ways to send more ads to more people, like these "free" phones. Spammers have shown that if you have a way to send the ads cheaply to enough people, they will still get enough responses to make a profit.


Ironically, it was Google itself who found an answer: make advertisements less visible. While all the others were creating things like blinking pop-ups, Google created a clean page where advertisements are almost unperceptible, visible only to people who are actually looking to buy.

time to wake up (3, Insightful)

edwardpickman (965122) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821078)

It's not possible to watch ads 24/7. Sorry folks we simply can't do it. Seems to be a great frustriation to advertisers that we don't want to watch their ads all bloody day. After a while you just shut down. CNN is driving me nuts lately with the Head On commercials. They even tried to make a joke of how obnoxious they are. Hate to break it to them but I switch the channel everytime they come on. The scary thing is if I try to switch to the other CNN channel half the time there's one running there too. I swear the Clockwork Orange eyes pried open senerio is an advertisers wet dream. You want advertising to be more effective? How about less of it. People used to watch commercials or at least let them run. I hit mute or switch the channel everytime so it went from say ten minutes plus an hour to zero exposure for me. How effective are your commercials when no one will watch them or worse yet they switch the channel?

Re:time to wake up (3, Insightful)

walnutmon (988223) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821166)

Good point, but I guarantee you that most people you see on the streets are not going to change that channel and possibly miss a moment of "The Amazing Race" or thier favorite synidcated gameshow. Plus, I know people who talk at work about their favorite commercials.

That is acceptable once a year, and it is during the superbowl, because the inherent manliness of watching it makes up for your minds freedom being sold for a day.

This post is brought to you by Dial anti viral vagina cream, Post(tm) Cocks and Mallow cereal, and the movie Junk Puncher, from the makers of The Matrix, premiers in a theater near you Friday...

Re:minds freedom (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821866)

Dramatic much?

Re:time to wake up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16821186)

They force you to watch them.

Lately Yahoo mail put up some really annoying adverts that cover up parts of your inbox (some flash thing).
I added the ad hosts as an alias to 127.0.0.1 in /etc/hosts. That worked nicely for a while.
Now they made the Logout link in yahoo mail point to their ad host with some kind of redirect to the
logout page. I can't open that page since I blocked it and have to cut parts of the URL to get to the logout
page.

You block them; they force it upon you.

That being said, there are some cool and interesting adverts on TV, but they're fairly rare.

  - 51acf00e7b6e2977807a371f24007eb39a863e7f

Re:time to wake up (1)

DilbertLand (863654) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821244)

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one that can't stand those Head On commercials. I do the exact same thing and switch the channel the second they come on and usually don't make it back to that channel for a long time (my attention span is short enough that I can easily get interested in some other show that's on). Most other commericals I can just tune out - the Head On ones are like scraping fingernails. I wonder if they offer deep discounts to all the other advertisers that have spots running immediately after those. Out of principle, I will never buy or use one of their products.

Re:time to wake up (1)

joshier (957448) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821246)

It's like making a stubern child eat sprouts.. The more you force him to eat it, the more he will detest it.

It's quite funny though, because some real talent is being put in to the removal of ads.. the stuff they come out with is brilliant (Filterset.G for firefox, myth tv, adblock etc)

Judging from my usualy phone calls... (5, Funny)

dartarrow (930250) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821082)

..my 'targeted ad' would be for V1@GRA and 'how to ease your debt'

Comments (1)

Antony-Kyre (807195) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821102)

Whatever happened to do no evil? What Google is doing is inbetween good and evil. To rip off what someone else said, more or less, Google is doing Goovil.

How will they make sure people actually pay attention and just don't do something else for the 30 seconds or so?

Will there be a 911 and other emergy number exception?

If cell phone calls are so inexpensive, why not fund it through various other means? There are endeavours that require a vast amount of people. I think one of them involves identifying pictures by asking people to say what they think they are. Computers can't really make this distinction right now. Imagine paying people with minutes of free cell phone calls for logging onto their computer, going to a certain site, and aiding in this.

Re:Comments (4, Funny)

clickclickdrone (964164) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821168)

>Will there be a 911 and other emergy number exception?
Almost. You'll get a YouTube ad for clips of Police beating up suspects.

I would rather pay a fixed amount... (1)

Wonderkid (541329) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821112)

...per month (or other preferred billing peroid) for unlimited calls, but NO ads. Why always this obsession with ads? I have purchased everything I own after seeing other people with the item(s) in their lives, from my first car to an iPod. The standard of living countries that frown on over commercialisation (such as Sweden) is the same or higher than countries that surround themselves with such crap. Google show such little imagination it's stunning. Watch this space.

Re:I would rather pay a fixed amount... (1)

DMorritt (923396) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821384)

I have purchased everything I own after seeing other people with the item(s) in their lives maybe google needs to start sponsoring your friends then?

Already been tried. (1)

Lissajous (989738) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821124)

The Gizmondo was going to do this. It was going to have what they dubbed "Smart Ads" that would be MMSed to your console. Of course, no-one actually advertised using it, (FWICR) not a single smart ad was ever sent, and the gizmondo has now all-but-disappeared into infamy, shards of Ferarri Enzo, and a jail term for ex-CEO Eriksson. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gizmondo [wikipedia.org] for more details.

Quite (cough) coincidentally, ex-boss of Gizmondo, Carl Freer, is currently running http://www.xeromobile.net/ [xeromobile.net] - a cellphone network offering almost exactly this.

Text message adverts... (2, Funny)

walnutmon (988223) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821130)

Honestly, I don't even like getting text messages from friends, unless it is a girl who is saying "I am on my way to give you BJ, need beer?"

I don't even watch TV anymore because commercials are so god damn annoying.

The last thing I want is some annoying bullshit ringing my phone while I am sleeping, roll over, cursing the fact that I haven't muted it, check out who sent me what...

"Best buy is having a sale on Kelly Clarkson: From church going babe, to cocksucking ho! And don't forget to watch 3LBS tonight, it's not exactly brain surgery... Actually it is!"

While "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" is playing in the background...

Jesus Christ, that is some evil shit.

Re:Text message adverts... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16821210)

Honestly, I don't even like getting text messages from friends, unless it is a girl who is saying "I am on my way to give you BJ, need beer?"

If that is what you're interested in, why stick with girls? Surely guys are better at knowin what you want.

Re:Text message adverts... (1)

walnutmon (988223) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821238)

But it is riskier to bust on a guys face and then punch him in the head...

Soon... (1)

Rastignac (1014569) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821138)

All your ads are belong to Google. ;)

Re:Soon... (1)

dtzWill (936623) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821256)

All your ads are belong to Google. ;)


From the way things have been going, more like:

All your everything are belong to Google.

Advertising Madness (4, Interesting)

ajs318 (655362) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821188)

The business world seems to have gone advertising crazy!

People don't want adverts. People do not want adverts on TV; that is why we used to have VCRs, before the advent of DVD+RW and Sky Plus. Anything worth watching got recorded, and the advertisements got the fast-forward button. With Sky Plus you can start recording, wait ten minutes or so (the total amount of advert breaks in the programme minus the anticipated amount of time spending re-watching good bits), start watching from the beginning, and fast-forward through the breaks.

People do not want adverts on the radio, which is why it's so good that Radio Two is the first station up from the bottom of the dial.

People don't want adverts in magazines and newspapers, and will turn the page and miss a good story rather than see an advertisement.

People don't want adverts on the internet. Hence the popularity of various advert-blocking and flash-blocking Firefox extensions, the use of "block images from this server" and {for the full-on geek} Squid. Even people without advert-blocking software will navigate away from a site which tries to bombard them with images.

I don't think I'm alone in saying that I would much rather pay cash up front for the phone calls I am going to make, than watch advertisements.

Re:Advertising Madness (1)

redhotgranny (1013471) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821232)

The business world seems to have gone advertising crazy!

Google's business is advertising.

Re:Advertising Madness (2, Insightful)

planetmn (724378) | more than 7 years ago | (#16822216)

While people don't want advertising, I would argue that people prefer advertising to paying for the service themselves.

On this side of the pond you have choices:
TV: There are a few channels without commercials, but very few, some people use DVRs and fast forward through them. I don't know that I agree with you on the VCR, I myself have never heard about somebody recording a show onto a tape just to get through the commercials (though I have known of people who recorded a movie and while doing so, edited out the commercials).
Radio: There is your standard AM/FM, supported by advertisers generally. Or you could pay for XM/Sirius. To me, I'll save the $10/mo and when advertising comes on, either suffer through it, or hit the next preset on my radio.
Magazines and Newspapers: These are almost completely supported by advertising revenue, and since companies are still advertising in them, somebody must be looking at it. And there is a difference, at least when it comes to newspapers: location. I am much more tolerant of local advertising (a new restaurant in my town, or a specialty shop that I hadn't noticed before) than I am of other advertising.
Internet: Yes, there is ad-blocking software out there, but how many people, not of the slashdot demographic use it? Nobody I know uses it. People definately get annoyed at some ads (pop-up/pop-under, flash, ones that take control of the mouse), but the text, or even banner ads, aren't hated as much in the real world as they are on slashdot.

I think if you broke it down and told people that in order to see their TV shows, listen to their radio stations, surf their websites, they'd either have to pay (even more) for cable/sat, spend $10 a month on sat radio and either subscribe or purchase products from every website they visit, they'll gladly accept the ads.

-dave

Re:Advertising Madness (2, Interesting)

hhghghghh (871641) | more than 7 years ago | (#16822536)

People don't want adverts. If people don't want adverts, why do they act like they do and reward companies that advertise by buying more of their product? From the company's point of view, feelings of like or dislike are irrelevant. In this regard, they're much like abusive boyfriends..

Boom! It's a trap... (2, Interesting)

RuBLed (995686) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821192)

From TFA: "Schmidt acknowledged that mobile phones may never become totally free to the consumer. Newspapers are still not completely free a hundred years after they started relying on advertising, but they certainly are inexpensive, he noted."

Re:Boom! It's a trap... (1)

husey (1000259) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821240)

"Newspapers are still not completely free"

What? Like Metro?

Re:Boom! It's a trap... (2, Interesting)

BKX (5066) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821516)

Ordinarily, I don't respond to karma-whores (I earned my excellent karma the old-fashioned way.), but this time I will. Though, it is actually a response to TFA. Newspapers and magazines make enough from advertising to be completely free to the consumer. In fact, many magazines have tried going completely free. What they found was that if you give magazines and newspapers away, people think that they must suck because they're free and they won't read them. If you charge for them (it doesn't matter how much, so long as money comes out of the wallet), people think the publication must not suck because they are paying for it and will gladly read it. Why do think magazine subscriptions practically give themselves away? In fact, no magazine or newspaper will ever attempt to collect on a bill if you write back that you don't want to pay. It's just not worth it, since they made their money long before you read their articles.

already happening (1)

jovius (974690) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821260)

The future seems to be 6 months away: http://about.blyk.com/ [blyk.com] Nokia envisioned this in 2000, and some people behind Blyk are ex-Nokia executives.

donno about you - but I just LOVE Google! (0)

locksmith101 (1017864) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821262)

Maybe they are storing data on all of us...maybe... but bear in mind that they provide excellent services and they are all free! they wewre the first huge mega company that actually tried to make things right for the end user - their method of money making (google ads) is not only brilliant it's also far from disturbing the eye - no silly loud banners - no stupid pop ups - no "view this commercial while we are loading the page". Their search is still better then the rest of the search engines, their email is way better then all the rest (not to mention much larger), google earth, google toolbar - need I say more? They are awesom - and I look forward for a bright future with Google

ad devaluation (1)

munkay (942872) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821278)

This advertising overload will just cause people to 'develop' a filter, sort of advertising blindness.
Just like what happened to ad banners on the web, i hardly even notice them anymore let alone click on them.
And as people pay less attention to the advertising it's worth less and they'll have to find other sources
of revenue...

Yawn (+10) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16821294)

Internet is the data.
Google is a database which maps the data to keys.
Other databases are possible but people don't bother because google search is free.

Many people "envision" things.
Negroponte didn't just envision the OLPC. He DID IT.
So give us a break Chris Di Bona and bring back Kaz

I'll be the first in line (1)

ushimon (979200) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821306)

I'd give an ad-supported cell phone a try, as long as there's no monkey to punch. I haven't had a cell phone in over a year since they're still pretty expensive. I could've had a Quiznos tzatziki chicken sub every other day on the amount I was spending on my last phone.

Re:I'll be the first in line (2, Funny)

SleepyHappyDoc (813919) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821360)

Now, if Google would give me a tzatziki chicken sub for viewing ads, I would definitely be interested.

You have to charge for something (2, Insightful)

91degrees (207121) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821320)

Not everything can be financed buy advertising. Eventually you're going to have to advertise a product that separates the end user from his pennies.

I suspect that the person who makes this product that people are willing to spend money on is going to make a killing.

Talk about targeted (4, Funny)

ZoneGray (168419) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821352)

Well, it should make for some interesting ad targeting.

Let's see, we'll just dial here... Nine One One... Send..... "ring, ring... Your call will be connected shortly. Did you know, Kidde fire extinguishers come with a full lifetime guarantee...."

ARRGGHHH!

Hmmm, try again. Let's call a Corvette dealer.... dial the number here.... "ring, ring.... Your call will be connected shortly. Did you know that you can order Viagra from the privacy and comfort of your home? Press 69* for more information."

Pay to Play (1, Interesting)

eyeb1 (522766) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821454)

the idea that in the modern electronic age .. communications for the masses is some kind of convenience or privilege or commodity .. to be payed for by allowing myself to be lied to .. influenced .. manipulated .. conditioned .. pitched .. and sold ..

as opposed to the "right" of a fully aware .. fully functional and participating citizen ..

is just another proof that mass brain washing .. "public education" in it's current form ..

works very well ..

and why the corporate capitalist structure .. is destined to implode on itself .. taking everything else in sight with it ..

Buy .. Buy .. Buy .. Goodbye .. mankind ..

in a society ..

if i/we have what i/we NEED .. i/we am are FREE to do other work .. i/we am/are FREE to be .. i/we am/are FREE to do anything .. if i/we don't have what i/we Need .. i/we am/are not free at ALL ..

if i have to pay to play .. i have no FREEDOM ..

Re:Pay to Play (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821964)

Oh yes, the world where instantaneous, global communication is even possible is much less free than the world where almost no one goes over the hill a couple miles to the east of the village.

It is a bit of a bummer that you have to pay property taxes in many places, but it is perfectly possible to go back in time several hundred years and bust your ass as a subsistence farmer, it just isn't very desirable.

Remember, the basis of capitalism is trade, something that, essentially by definition, makes both parties better off. Yeah, sometimes a third party gets screwed(offshoring screws the guy who lost the job, but it benefits the guy who gets cheaper goods/services and the guy who gets a job). With a few sane laws, capitalism is perfectly tenable as a system of resource allocation. You will be better off if you stop pretending otherwise.

Ads targeted by the subject of your conversations. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16821460)

If Google wants records of my phone conversations, it's gonna cost more than a cheap cell phone.

Interesting ideas (2, Interesting)

DMorritt (923396) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821508)

but if you read the article they are looking further into the future than just giving you the latest nokia on a std contract and making you watch a few ads or get a few texts and mms's. the article would be more orientated at a society where the phone replaces the computer, and also states "Schmidt says consumers would get the device without cost - provided they accepy targeted advertising." (SIC) and "Schmidt acknowledged that mobile phones may never become totally free to the consumer" so the article title is a little misleading, which one is it? then they talk about storing consumer data ... very little about free mobiles is mentioned, so really its a pointless article unless you want to discuss possibilities of the way the internet and computer/mobile phones will work in the future.

ENVISAGES! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16821538)

oh for fuck's sake. there is no such word 'envisions' is barbarous.

it's ENVISAGES!!!!!!

google ENVISAGES whatever it is they mean to envisage. spose envisioning, if it existed, would be the process of turning something concrete back into a Vision. You may feel this is what Google does, but, bollocks, can we get rid of the shitty English?

Brings back bad memories (1)

DaMattster (977781) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821716)

Brings back bad memories of the dot com era. Personally, I am sick of adverrtisements and would stick to my paid cell phone now. We are bombarded by ads now in everyday life to the point of nausea.

ads? No thank you (3, Insightful)

whistlingtony (691548) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821938)

I don't watch TV partly because of the ads. I hate ads. I don't want to consume. I don't want to WANT to consume!

Having Stuff be supported by ads is incredibly annoying. I use google instead of say... MSN(ha!) because I don't want my bandwidth sucked up by annoying ads, and I don't want to be clobbered over the head with pictures of pretty people. Frell That. And when I'm just searching, I don't look at the google ads at all. Sure, subliminals count for something... Sigh.

When I do shop, I use sometimes use google (when I don't go directly to a website I know and trust) though. Their ads are less annoying and intrusive. They grate less on my nerves. It's simple. When I want to shop, I'll go FIND the ads. They don't need to find me. Screw the impulse buy!

So, by being less annoying, google gets me to shop through them. Sometimes.

Thank the gods for Adblock and Firefox, or I'd have to browse in Lynx.

I've read Snow Crash. I've read The Selfish Gene. My mental anti-viral software is loaded.

Oh gods, I'm becoming a Luddite.

-T, who will always pay to avoid ads or go without.

Ever get the feeling you've been scammed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16821966)

Don't Be Evil? It's becoming apparent that Google is nothing more than a highly efficient ad-serving machine whose goal is to make sure that you read their text ads, hear their audio ads, and watch their video ads, i mean, commercials.

What's next? Google DreamWords? gLiminial Ads?

This call brought to you by... (2, Interesting)

AnswerIs42 (622520) | more than 7 years ago | (#16822026)

I don't browse the web on my phone. I don't watch TV or listen to music on my phone as well. I use it for what it is.. a PHONE. So I am kind of concerned at to HOW they will bring the ads to me. Will it be something like this?

*ring*
Me: Hello?
Phone: This call has been brought to you by....
Me: Argh!
Caller: Hello?
Me: Ah, ok.. I had an ad playing here. What's up?
Caller: It's you're father he is in the hospital with..
Phone: Interested in hospitals? Check these out...
Me: What the f**k?!?
Caller: What did you just say? you're father is in the HOSPITAL!
Me: Sorry, the phone just ran another ad.
Caller: Oh, I .. see.. Well, you're father is really sick so you should go see him.
Phone: Want to send flowers.......
Me: Let me call you back from my land line.
Phone: Need phon... *click*

Oh yea.. I can see it now...

No No No (1)

gelfling (6534) | more than 7 years ago | (#16822074)

No. No ads to talk on the phone. No No No No No. No Joke. No No No No.

fp Ni6ga (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16822118)

*BSD but FreeBSD Members' cReative design approach. As future at all

US advertising. (1)

caluml (551744) | more than 7 years ago | (#16822140)

I watched some Fox news for a laugh recently - and am shocked, as a Brit, as to how much advertising they sling at you folk over there.
And it all seems to be rather poor, shoddy, lengthy adverts.

Apparently, the 45 mins of "24" fills an hour here (with adverts). But you guys drag it out for an hour and a half.

If that's the style of advertising we'd get, please, no.

when (1)

NRISecretAgent (982853) | more than 7 years ago | (#16822222)

When are we going to see (or hear) these ads. How about random intervals in the day? Yeah right, I'm going to have my PHONE telling me what to do? How about before you make a phone call... well shoot what if you have an emergency and you don't have the time for that? The only time where you are pretty sure you have the person's attention and can slip an ad in (it appears to me) is when the receiving phone is ringing. But they would have to make sure that it ONLY happened when it was ringing. It couldn't add to the time it takes to dial (emergencies) and would have to cut off if someone answered right away... If I got completely free phone and service for THAT, I'd do it in a heartbeat (provided the reception was good =))

And expensive if one doesn't watch the ads? (1)

randolph (2352) | more than 7 years ago | (#16822260)

Probably; advertisers really hate people who turn them off. So why can't basic voice and limited data cell service just be free? It's a lot cheaper to build a voice cell network than a road network. So, why not make it a public service?

I can see it now ... (1)

Luscious868 (679143) | more than 7 years ago | (#16822354)

You're cell phone battery is low and you just locked your keys in the car. You fire up your cell phone to call one of your friends to come pick you up. Before you make the call a targeted add displays and as a result you're phone dies before you can complete the call. No thanks, I'll pass.

I'm sick of commercials and targeted ads as it is. I'd rather pay what I'm paying now and own the phone. It's bad enough that I've got to watch ads before I sit to watch a movie and while I'm watching television (that was originally supposed to be entirely free but now costs me more than $100 a month to get all of the channels that I want), I'll pass when I'm using a phone. It reminds me of those gas stations a while back that put a speaker in the pump and played ads while I filled my car up with gas. What a pain in the ass. People around where I lived stopped going to that station and they got rid of the ads real quick.

Mexuar (1)

dean.collins (862044) | more than 7 years ago | (#16822494)

There is a guy in Hawaii looking to roll this out nationwide using a variation of our technology at http://www.mexuar.com/ [mexuar.com]

You can check out his trial site for free phone calls here http://talk.alohatone.com/demo2/ [alohatone.com]

He has a couple of other concept sites here http://talk.alohatone.com/ [alohatone.com]

Cheers,
Dean
Mexuar USA
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>