November 16, 2009

Will Apple force you to watch ads?

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

And now, a word from our sponsor.

Yes, this is true: Last year Apple Inc. filed for a patent on technology that would force you to watch advertisements, no matter how hard you tried to avoid it.

[ According to Cringely's estimates, the Apple takeover may be nearly complete, as he documents in "It's Apple's world, we just click in it" | Stay up to date on Robert X. Cringely's musings and observations with InfoWorld's Notes from the Underground newsletter. ]

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

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

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

In this scheme, once an ad starts running, you'll have to interact with it to prove you've watched it. Worse, the interaction will vary -- the required activity or location of the "clickspot" will change from ad to ad -- which makes them much harder to avoid. As Macworld's Jeff Porten notes:

additional resources
White Paper - How to Improve Delivery of Advanced Web Applications

White Paper

Virtual Workforce: The Key to Expanding The Business While Cutting Costs

Get the independent advice and expertise you need to support a virtual workforce.

Go inside:
The three-step approach to making a virtual workforce a reality.
The four flavors of client virtualization technologies.
The three key initiatives that solve IT challenges.
Download now »
White Paper: Successfully Secure Your Wireless LAN With Wi-Fi firewalls.

White Paper

Addressing Linux Threats Leveraging Fewer Resources

The increase in Linux popularity has increased the frequency and sophistication of malware attacks. Read this 2 page white paper now to learn how you can protect your Linux environment with real-time protection that is certified by all major Linux vendors.

Download now »
White Paper - The 2009 Handbook of Application Delivery

White Paper

The 2009 Handbook of Application Delivery

Ensuring acceptable application delivery will become even more difficult over the next few years. As a result, IT organizations need to ensure that the approach that they take to resolving the current application delivery challenges can scale to support the emerging challenges. This handbook elaborates on the key tasks associated with planning, optimization, management and control and provides decision criteria to help IT organizations choose appropriate solutions.

Download now »
White Paper - Is Your Backup System Outdated?

White Paper

Mid-range Storage Considerations

A common misconception is that mid-range storage requirements are dramatically different than that of a larger enterprise. Mid-range storage users may require less capacity, but they have similar functionality and management requirements. This ESG paper examines mid-range storage needs and reviews a new solution that adjusts size while retaining value, performance and functionality.

Download now »
A41202813@GMAIL.COM 16-Nov-09 10:14am
1 reply
If Services And Products Could Be Sold In Countless Layers From Full Price To Almost Free, It Is Up To The Customer To Choose The Best Ratio In PRICE Versus ANNOYANCE. It Is A Good Idea.
Loerps 16-Nov-09 11:39am
1 reply
Congratulations. You've just forfeited your right to complain if any other company - including Microsoft - decides to do this same thing.
A41202813@GMAIL.COM 16-Nov-09 5:47pm
You Did Not Read My Whole Comment, Did You ?
ned4spd8874 16-Nov-09 10:58am
5 replies
First, I hate ads. Secondly, does anyone find it odd that InfoWorld here is bashing Apple for it's potential ad usage when IW just recently modified their pages so that simple stories that could be presented on only one page have been modified for at least 2 pages? Thus increasing ad and page views/counts? I love IW and I love Cring, but come on. It's a little like the pot calling the kettle black...a little.
Loerps 16-Nov-09 11:41am
The InfoWorld ads can be avoided. Personally, I've not read a single ad InfoWorld has ever displayed. I just ignore them. If Apple gets away with this, avoiding the ads will not be an option.
SortaNorth 16-Nov-09 4:43pm
"Secondly, does anyone find it odd that InfoWorld here is bashing Apple for it's potential ad usage..." -- or perhaps that IW also throws up an ad page the first time you come into their site? Even though I have "block popups" turned on I must first click "skip this ad" or wait the requisite time before the site goes away. So apparently IW doesn't share Cringley's (and most of the rest of the world's) disdain for these annoying ads?
Robert X. Cringely 17-Nov-09 8:36am
damned clever, though, isn't it? but what can you do? somebody's got to pay the bills.
cmaurand 17-Nov-09 8:46am
Firefox + Adblock Plus = no ads on infoworld or much of anywhere else for that matter. Other than that, I ignore them when I'm forced to use MS Explorer for something. I don't click on them and try as hard as possible to block out all of those annoyances and try to keep my machine free from cookies from doubleclick and all the other trackers that are out there.
cmaurand 17-Nov-09 8:48am
Firefox + Adblock Plus = no ads on Inforworld or anywhere else for that matter. Other than that I ignore all the ads that get flashed in front of my face. I don't click on them and I make sure that the adware cookies are removed from my machine each day.
smist08 16-Nov-09 11:09am

Glad Apple patented this, so hopefully Microsoft can't put this in Windows now!

EdK 16-Nov-09 11:21am
1 reply
Note, Apple's patent is only published, not granted. I hope the patent examiner looks at the "broadcast flag" as similar art which envisions a setting to not allow skipping of commercials on video content. Personally I think the use of the brodcast flag to block recording/copying should not be allowed by anyone using public airwaves, but it's there and can be used..
rcprimak 18-Nov-09 3:03pm
That Broadcast Flag does not apply to analog down-converts, for recording on old-fashioned VCRs. I have four working machines with DTV Converter boxes on them and have never missed a show. Not even sports. Cable is a different matter -- that is not available as a down-convert, AFAIK.
Dilbert 16-Nov-09 12:06pm

There is no way in hell I would ever use, look at, touch or even consider anything like that. I would rather go without what ever device they put it on then to be forced to do that BS. I mostly avoid sites that put annoyance ads up on there sites as well. When will they finally get it through their heads, if you want anyone to watch your ad, make it something we want to see. (Aflac commercials, Budwiser Christmas ones, Coke christmas ones, etc)

Kernos 16-Nov-09 12:08pm
It's not April first, is it?
HowardL 16-Nov-09 12:08pm
1 reply
All a patent does is ensure that whoever decides to implement the technology/idea will have to pay. And in this case pay Apple (that is, in most of the world). It certainly won't stop someone like Apple or Microsoft from including the feature ... if they paid Apple for the rights to use it. But remember someone would be footing the bill for the advertisement and the device or whatever it is being used in. I certainly wouldn't by a car from anyone who forced me to watch a car add everytime I turned my phone on (or worse made a phone call). So if you don't like the idea (and I certainly don't), then I suggest we all get on the horn to our favorite politician and nip the idea in the bud before it grows roots. I don't want to wait for a legal case to make it to the supreme court before it gets stopped. (PS> I never watch any of the ads or pop-ups that come up on any of the internet web pages ... I even ignor the MSN, Yahoo and Google sidebar ads.
gunner@gulftel.com 16-Nov-09 3:19pm
Unless they pass a law outlawing advertisements, I doubt there's anything our best buddies On The Hill can do for us this time (as if they EVER have...).
apeshansky 16-Nov-09 12:12pm
I just can imagine how someone gets killed because he cannot dial 911 before acknowledging the ad on the screen... It is not just a bad idea; it is insane.
ewelch 16-Nov-09 1:26pm
1 reply
Look at Apple's past. That is your guide to their future. There is no way the company that is defined by the user experience is going to make it the worst around. If anything, they patented it so they could keep it out of the hands of idiots (read Ballmer, Micheal Dell, etc.) Lots of things Apple patents never sees the light of day. And by the way, wasn't that a cagey, yet subtle, way to make the release by the Patent Office - which is required to do so - sound more insidious by simply saying "made public" and not saying it was the Patent Office putting it on the public record. A professional writer should be able to parse their words carefully enough so that most readers, who might not consciously pick up on such a subtlety, won't be misled.
Robert X. Cringely 17-Nov-09 8:33am
nothing insidious intended -- I just wanted to make clear that the patent filing became public in late October, not this past weekend. accuracy, not subtlety, was the motive.

but hey, if you want to think I'm more clever than that, be my guest.

cheers,

rxc

Deone Hoonoz 16-Nov-09 1:37pm
1 reply
The idea worked before on TV, that is interrupting a program to feed ads to the spectators. The idea will work again. There is no greater bullshiter than the American politico-businessman; there is no greater sucker than the American people. The American consumer will gobble it.
Robert X. Cringely 17-Nov-09 8:35am
1 reply
thus resulting in the widespread phenomenon known as 'channel surfing,' followed of course by Replay and TiVo. some consumers will gobble it; the rest will find a workaround.
rcprimak 18-Nov-09 3:06pm
In the case of Apple and Microsoft, would that "workaround" be spelled LINUX ??
SteveTheHawk 16-Nov-09 3:09pm
Ok....yeah.... I'll use a device that force feeds ads.... no problem. About the same time, I'll also become addicted to jamming pieces wood under my fingernails.
RamboTribble 16-Nov-09 5:09pm
Money-grubbing rich people love their little megalomaniacal plots to control the masses, don't they? Of course, there is probably only one thing that will prevent this idea from coming to fruition: Jobs is scared to death of Linux and implementing this atrocity would allow Tux to eat Apple down to the seeds. Free and Open Source software helps secure freedom, even for those who don't use it.
annenon98 17-Nov-09 4:13am
1 reply
I find the thought of having to endure yet more advertising completely abhorrent. It may be the case that Apple introduce a sliding scale of charging verses advertising - full price = no adverts and low price or free = full advertising. How long do you suppose that this will last before adverts creep into the full price system? Talking rubbish? Here in the UK the BBC Television Company currently charge us a premium of £142.50 per annum for a colour television licence to watch advert-free TV on the BBC network. So instead of playing a 'real' advert during the programming, they have guests on talk shows who will then promote their latest book, CD, concert, clothing line, etc, or they have events sponsored by "Big Company Products...", display big name brands in the background of programmes and the list goes on - all of which, in my opinion, comes under the heading of indirect subliminal advertising. It may be unfair for me to single out the BBC here in the UK, as I am sure this kind of thing happens everywhere else in the world, but as I have already stated paying a premium price (as with our TV licence) for an advert-free product does not necessarily mean you are free from advertising. So come on Apple, don't force any more of this insidious nonsense on your, oft times, loyal customers. Moan sponsored by Big Moan Products ;)
Deone Hoonoz 17-Nov-09 6:10am
3 replies
And you still watch the BBC annenon98, don't you? Same disguised Adds-free practice exists in countries around the world; and the US is no exception. They call it the PBS TV station. As I said in my comment above The American consumer will gobble it. So will the Britons…and the French…and the Moroccans…and the Mexicans…and in [short] time the entire planet will follow because consumers shall have no other choice but to guzzle what the media want them to. Human been is the most passive of all cattle.
Robert X. Cringely 17-Nov-09 8:30am
1 reply
But human bean makes a really fine coffee.
Deone Hoonoz 17-Nov-09 8:54am
I meant being of course. But I am sure you are intelligent enough to miss that Mr. Cringely.
annenon98 18-Nov-09 1:54am
1 reply
You are quite correct Deone Hoonoz, I do still watch the BBC occasionally - guilty as charged! Unfortunately, here in the UK we two choices on the TV licence. 1. Pay-up and shut-up or 2. Don't pay and risk a big fine and/or go to prison. This is, of course, on top of having to view these stupid adverts. This is one of the reasons we are known as rip-off Briton. Of course, I am not implying that Apple will take anyone to court, only that they *may* start forcing adverts onto unsuspecting consumers, despite having paid a premium for their "advert-free" product.
Deone Hoonoz 18-Nov-09 8:27am
Thank you for your reply annenon98. Please believe me; I understand perfectly your uncomfortable position. Choice 1 of course is the wise (and honest) one. The price you pay for a TV license is certainly worth it to shun the risk of few weeks or perhaps months in jail, not to mention a messed up record for life. At least here in the US we don't have to pay a similar TV license to Uncle Sam for PBS. I do however have a couple of solid idea on how to finance for public TV broadcasting and do away with the TV license model, but like many good ideas it will be choked in Senates or Congresses around the world. Speaking of Rip-off Briton, if that can make you feel a bit better; I could tell about some of the 1001 or should I say 10000001 ways the ripped-off American endures every day from financial institutions, insurance companies, online reservations or miracles products and other consumer scams. As I said in my comment aboveThere is no greater bullshiter than the American politico-businessman; there is no greater sucker than the American peopleBut it all comes down to the People and their will to refuse what is imposed on them”. And that includes over-taxation. For instance, the abolition of slavery started in the UK in late 18th century, when the people decided to boycott the sugar imported from the colonies. The British government simply gave up to the pressure and proclaimed Slavery outlawed and subsequently abolished some 46 years later. Comparatively it took the US a civil war to finally officially abolish slavery in 1865, one year after the civil war with the 13th amendment to the constitution nearly fifty years after Britain and France. So the fight for abolition of the TV license in UK should be a relatively easy undertaking for the people of England if they really put their mind into it.
rcprimak 18-Nov-09 3:09pm
1 reply
Have you watched PBS lately? It has ads just like other networks -- just crammed at the start and ends of the shows. And the shows run as short or shorter than other networks -- just to allow more promos between shows. PBS is not ad-free!
Deone Hoonoz 19-Nov-09 7:49am
Then unlike in the UK, we in the US have no reason whatsoever to consider a "Revolution" of some kind to "abolish" the TV license; We don't have any. So we have no reason to grumble. Just don’t watch...I don't.
And to answer your question rcprimak; no I do not watch PBS because it already started some years ago to be packed with ads - some stretching as much as thirty minutes - at the beginning and end of good quality programs, I agree with you. Truthfully I have watched PBS an approximate total time of 140 minutes in the last six or seven years.
vyengr 17-Nov-09 10:34am
Advertising works. And advertising works because a miniscule percentage of those exposed to ads buy. That's why spam works. Ergo more ads equals more buyers. As long as that is true ads will continue to intrude into our personal space and infest every nook and cranny of every medium. Bring it on, I say, because there has to be a tipping point where ads will have a negative impact on most people. I never hesitate to send negative (occasionally obscene) comments to the companies who sponsor those floating ads that obscure the part of the web page you are trying to read. I am sure some advertising guru is saying that my sending feedback of any kind is a good sign, but I do steadfastly refuse to buy anything from any company that uses those floaty ads.
csclay 17-Nov-09 12:45pm
1 reply

Advertising might work, but this is one person who no longer has a TV connection - no aerial, no cable, no TIVO - because I found the commercials intrusive, annoying, and insulting to my intelligence (and the intelligence of about 90% of the planet, I would guess). If I want to watch something, I get out a movie and watch it on my little 13" TV or my smaller, notebook sized TV/DVD/CD player.
If the ads become a part of the OS, then I'll just have to stay with an earlier version that doesn't have that feature. What happens if we all stop upgrading because we don't want the new "features"? The people who want us to keep buying have to pull the features out.
We can "rule" the market if we just use our heads and a bit of restraint. After all, we are the ones buying.

JamesMartin 17-Nov-09 1:19pm
1 reply

Or you could switch to Linux.

rcprimak 18-Nov-09 3:11pm
Unless they rig the Internet to reject Open Source. It has been tried already at many sites.
JamesMartin 17-Nov-09 1:18pm
"...sit inside" ... "devices and record "customer abuse events" that void the product's warranty..." It is already here. Little moisture sensitive indicators that show a cell phone has been "exposed to water", thus voiding the warranty you've been paying extra for for the last year and a half. Right, it rang and I answered it during a rain storm.
kmajor 17-Nov-09 7:20pm
1 reply
So who would 'buy' and AppleTV if it was free? If the only 'price' was watching one or even two 30 sec ad before or during any 22 min sitcom or maybe three or four during an hour long show you downloaded from iTunes or elsewhere. What if your AppleTV could act as a DVR from your cable or IPTV provider and/or have access to watch Netflix, Hulu or other online content for just the cost of 60-120 seconds of your time. Hulu already does this with some items, giving you the option of watching one 1 min ad at the beginning of a show, or subjecting yourself to three 15 second ads during the program. Maybe if you have a 'free' but subsidized AppleTV, then all programming you download from iTunes would be an additional 10% off. That would be nice. Another idea...AT&T has been in bed with Apple now on the iPhone for 3 years. AT&T also recently launched U-verse IPTV in cities all around the country. The receiver/STB is free. What if you could use your AppleTV (or even your Mini or laptop for that matter) as a u-verse set top box to watch content from the home's DVR? It can be done with a Microsoft XBOX already - why not a Mac. If I just have to 'pay' a few seconds (and not real cash!) then I would gladly accept any entertainment and new hardware they want to give me.
rcprimak 18-Nov-09 3:13pm
Hulu is losing a lot of money. They will start charging for content and using more ads in 2010.
BigRonG 17-Nov-09 9:09pm
1 reply
Horibili dictu! Another door for spam - except in the OS. And, believe me, if it became real, MS would license it. So Google would win the war - even if it was just to sell to Apple and MS.
vyengr 18-Nov-09 11:22am
horribile dictu
iwoolle 18-Nov-09 11:19am
Software costs money to develop, and someone has to pay. So, either we pay a price for the product that covers the original investment and provides a return, or the manufacturer finds another way to earn. You only need to look at the airline industry to see what happens when you give the store away....
rcprimak 18-Nov-09 3:15pm
I would opt for the paid option without ads in the software, if it remains an option. I would pay three times more, just not to be interrupted or locked out during a virus scan or a system backup, or when saving e-mails or other important documents. Either that, or go Open Source as much as They will allow.

Sign up to receive InfoWorld Resource Alerts

Subscribe to the Robert X. Cringely: Notes from the Trenches Newsletter

The one-stop resource center for IT professionals.

©1994-2010 Infoworld, Inc.