Slashdot Mirror
Apple Patents "Enforceable" Ad Viewing On Devices
Rexdude writes "Apple has filed a patent that forces users to interact with an ad. FTFA: '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.'" We've been
following this story for awhile now but it seems to have broken into the mainstream.
Hello Apple? I have a problem with my iPhone. Every time it shows an advertisement, the screen gets smashed. Can you help?
This is my sig.
Like most companies, Apple doesn't use half of their patents. Hopefully, this will be one of those unused ones.
What has changed since the last story about Apple's advertising patent?
Actually, I'm in full support of this particular patent. As long as they don't actually use it themselves, don't license it, and vigorously enforce it.
Moreover, I would not purchase any product made by a company that produces this device. With a few compatriots, we'll solve this problem.
College Humor had Volkswagen ads I liked. They were amusing, and there was a 5 second "This video brought to you by Volkswagen" or something before the video.
College Humor later had another sponsor that demanded a 35 second mandatory viewing BEFORE the video played. I don't recall who. I do recall they annoyed me and I didn't care for their product; I'd buy from their competitors if I did.
If the ads piss you off, the product pisses you off. Fuck that. Don't buy shit that's advertised through irritation.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
- This is 911.
* Help, I am being attacked!
- Hold on sir, I will <click>
iPhone:
Video of security-spray followed by the question "Would this product have helped in your situation?"
Ansver: Yes
- <click> Sir, are you still there?
- Sir?
- hello?
* gurgle, gurgle. (bloody mess on ground...)
It increasingly seems like the major software companies are determined to use any CPU cycles wrung out of Moore's law beyond 2005 levels exclusively for their own benefit, leaving us with our 3 ghz 1 gb machine, and quite content. This sort of nonsense removes the primary benefit of a computer, which is its ability to do things for you without your input. Now it does things for someone else, and it requires your input.
Buy a campaign of competitor's product using this technology to advertize it.
Massive profit.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Why can't people see that Apple is evil? Seriously, at what level of bend over and take it does it start to hurt enough to want it to stop? What is the line that will get the fanboy's to realize that they do just as much evil stuff as microsoft or any other company in tech? Does shiny and simple really outweigh everything else? I expect to get flaimed and modded down, but I really want to know, how much is too much, what would it take for the iMasses to see the real iJob and wake up?
There's no app for that.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
There is often a psychological gulf between US and UK advertising. Often US advertising is based around insecurity and fear: if you don't buy this you will continue to smell/have bugs grow in your crotch/put off the opposite sex/have your neighbors laugh at you/be unAmerican. One can imagine all too well that a sizeable part of the population, forced to view such ads, will react as desired. It is less likely to work in Europe, where there is far more distrust of corporations and official-sounding messages (partly because of our bad history in the first half of the 20th century.)
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
where failure to consume is frowned upon, if not outright treasonous.
Good people go to bed earlier.
So how well do the before and after statistics in locations around the world that have changed their firearm policies support your assertion?
Click below for continuing NBC.COM coverage of the military response on Klendathu in the Quarrantine Zone.
......[YES]......[YES]
Citizen, would you like to know more?
Does this patent mean Nokia can't use it on the N900 (and successors)? if so, "Good, well done Apple." Tough shit iPhone users though.
Max.
This is 911.
Help, I am being attacked!
Hold on sir, I will--
Sir, are you still there?
Sir? Hello? Gurgle, gurgle.
(Bloody mess on ground...)
Congratulations, you win our haiku contest!
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Maybe THAT's what all those people were doing when that crazy lady threw the sledgehammer through the screen.
Decades? If you think that DVDs have been around for "decades" then you are too young for that sig!
You're assuming that the telco in this fictional/theoretical example wouldn't exert some kind of control over the kinds of ads that get played over its network. TV stations routinely refuse to air some kinds of advertisement if they feel that it doesn't meet the corporate ethical image that they're trying to portray to the public.
Also, there's a very big difference between what airtime actually costs and what the cell companies charge you... especially when you start buying time in bulk. When you can add 1000 minutes of talk time for $5/month and they're still making a profit off of it, you know that the actual cost to the telco is nowhere near as high as they're charging you. I'm also making the (possibly wrong) assumption that given a captive audience and some kind of test at the end of the ad to check that you actually did pay attention, the price that you could command for the ad might be somewhat higher than what you'd pay to put something on broadcast TV or an Internet banner exposure.
*shrugs* it was just put forward as an example of a way that they could monetize a patent like this without actually having an evil intent. The truth is, I have no idea what they're planning with it... it could actually be one of those patents that people file in order to prevent a technology from ever making it to market.
Who the hell cares about firearm homicides?
How much did all homicides change?
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Indeed. I'm a progressive, and the huge mistake that progressivism has constantly made in history is attempting to ban effects, not causes. Prohibition, gun bans, etc.
Even stuff like consumer and lending protection laws, which at least don't have any bad side effects, but are less useful than actual consumer education would be. Sometimes stopgaps are reasonable, but we really do need to get to the root of the problem: People have no idea how to manage their financial life.
Hell, education isn't the only solution. We could come up some cheap financial advisory industry. It's absurd that the legal and financial professions have priced themselves out of normal people being able to consult with them before doing major things.
And the right's not immune to it either, look at their little idiocy about illegal immigration. As long as you have a poor country, next to a rich company, where people can go and get much better jobs, you're going to have people doing that. As we can't do anything about the poor country, we don't want to do anything about the rich country, and we can't move our country, the only solution is, duh, not offer them jobs. Or, rather, crack down on people doing so. Instead we get 'law and order' nonsense.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Handguns are the great equalizer.
Without them, some people can injury and kill another person, without that other person being able to stop them. The strong can prey on the weak.
With handguns, all people can injury and kill others.
But this also means all people can fight back when the other person tries to do that to them.
It's a basic equality thing. If some people have the ability to hurt others (And some of that subset, in fact, does.), those others should also have that ability to hurt them back.
Laws forbidding concealed carry are essentially saying 'Everyone must be as weak as they look, so the strong know who they can threaten safely'.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Hackers.
First thing I thought when I read the blurb. "Wouldn't this be a cherry target for hackers?"
Think about it. An entire API that can halt the whole damn system, pre-emptively appropriate the screen and audio resources, and interact with the user?
How about an application that notices whenever the tcp/ip stack sends out a DNS query to www.somebank.com and puts it's app on the screen over top of your browser? It's a spoof so it looks just like your banking webpage. "Please enter your name and password." Bingo - instant password grabber.
Brilliant notion Apple.
Here's a tip for the future. Whenever you think something is a good idea, imagine what the black hat hacker implications are. Always ask: What if this fell into enemy hands?
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Story of Apple talking to Entertainment/Hollywood/TV executives re monthly subscription fee....
This is the most likely scenario for their intent.
This would fit both the desktop and mobile devices.
Awesome. I don't buy Apple products. Now no one else can do this without paying Apple. Who's going to do that? I'll never have to deal with this. Awesome. Thanks, Apple.
After bricking unlocked iPhones, kicking applications off the iPhone store that might even slightly compete with iTunes in the far future and filing a wave of patents on basic well-known computer science as well as some of the most obnoxious ideas for advertising ever invented, Apple Inc. today filed a Form 8-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission declaring that it was openly adopting Evil as a corporate policy.
“Fuck it,” said Steve Jobs to an audience of soul-mortgaged thralls, “we’re evil. But our stuff is sooo good. You’ll keep taking our abuse. You love it, you worm. Because our stuff is great. It’s shiny and it’s pretty and it’s cool and it works. It’s not like you’ll go back to a Windows Mobile phone. Ha! Ha!”
Steve Ballmer of Microsoft was incensed at the news. “Our evil is better than anyone’s evil! No-one sweats the details of evil like Microsoft! Where’s your antitrust trial, you polo-necked bozo? We’ve worked hard on our evil! Our Zune’s as evil as an iPod any day! I won’t let my kids use a lesser evil! We’re going to do an ad about that! I’ll be in it! With Jerry Seinfeld! Beat that! Asshole.”
“Of course, we’re still not evil,” said Sergey Brin of Google. “You can trust us on this. Every bit of data about you, your life and the house you live in is strictly a secret between you and our marketing department. But, hypothetically, if we were evil, it’s not like you’re going to use Windows Live Search. Ha! Ha! I’m sorry, that’s my ‘spreading good cheer’ laugh. Really.”
http://rocknerd.co.uk
I can't imagine this being part of the built-in software., but I can actually see a use for this. If it were an API for those iPhone app writers who make two versions of their app---a free, ad-supported version and a paid version---then it would help support that model.
The other thought that comes to mind is that if Apple has a patent on this and refuses to license that patent, they can in some small way improve the cell phone industry by ensuring that no one ever designs a free phone or a low cost cellular plan that is subsidized in this way. :-D
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Yeah, that's a sorta vague term, isn't it? OTOH, all political descriptions are sorta vague terms. ;)
I, personally, am along the lines of Woodrow Wilson (domestically) and FDR. Namely, I agree that the government should attempt to implement the FDR's 'Second Bill of Rights', although it's absurd to call those 'rights'. They should, however, be government goals.
Members of a political philosophies need to be very aware where that philosophy has failed in the past. (Something I fear the conservatives are about to learn the hard way.)
In the case of progressives, almost all progressive failures have been attempting to solve the entirely wrong thing.
For example, Prohibition was an attempt to solve the problem of men spending all their family's money on drink, and then being abusive towards their wives. (Modern people read about 'demon liquor' and laugh, but they don't know the context of that.)
That problem was actually solved with divorce (Another progressive concept) and the ability of women to earn their own money (Which was a liberal concept.), and the eventual recognition of spousal abuse as a serious problem. (Also liberal concept.)
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
I don't care that the post is already at +5. Petition CowboyNeal to make it +6, because that is precisely how to get average schmoes to understand how digital restrictions are hurting them.
First of all, I don't acknowledge the term "DRM" or "Digital Rights Management," because that does not describe what it's used for. I call it a more layman-friendly "digital restrictions." The whole concept need to be reframed. When people hear "DRM," they think it's some kind of techno-jargon that they don't understand. Even if they find out what it stands for, they think, "Hey, it's to help me manage something, that's a good thing, right?" They need to understand that its sole purpose is restricting them from doing things with their digital stuff. Even if they choose not to do those things, they need to understand that DRM gives them nothing; its only function is to take away.
I tell people all the time about how unbelievably behind we are because of digital restrictions. "Hey, wouldn't it be cool if we could watch television on our iPhones? Well, there's no technical reason we can't; it's just that digital restrictions are stopping us." "Did you know that it would be trivially simple to write some slick software so that you could store every CD and DVD you own on a hard drive that costs less than $200 so that you could watch or listen to anything you want, anytime you want, without having to fool with the physical media? Well, we could, if it weren't for digital restrictions."
Now and then, I actually show people some of the stuff that I have and that I can do, given my technical know-how to rip DVDs and stream them to my television, load them on my iPhone, etc. When people "ooh" and "ahh" over it and ask me how they can do such things, I tell them, "Well, it's pretty hard right now, you have to really dig around to find the software and jump through a bunch of hoops to do it. Unfortunately, whenever anyone tries to write software to make it easier or publish such software in a legitimate way, they get sued out of existence by the people who don't want you to be able to do this without paying big bucks. (Or in many of cases, who simply don't want you to be able to do this at all.)
I prefer to evaluate the movie on it's own merits, rather than complain that it doesn't parrot the book perfectly. It's not a deep cerebral movie, but it's produced well enough to be immersive and fun (except, possibly, for the bizarre physics in the scene where Rico is standing atop the thrashing tanker.)
My wife doesn't like the movie, and can't get past the "extreme violence." She didn't see the strong parallels between the Global Federation and the 1940s era Nazis. Yes Virginia, the Nazis are the good guys. Maybe that's where the hate comes from.
By sending business back to Blackberry and the various Android-based phones?
Sorry, I'm a writer. That makes you raw material.
Artificially bending the market to do what you want it to do is not improving anything.
Spoken like someone who wants to have to view ads every five minutes to continue a phone call.
What, are you kidding me? Between you and I, there's only one of us arguing that mandatory ads are a good thing. There's only one of us defending Apple's ridiculous patent and methods. And I do believe that there's only one of us that currently owns an iPhone (and it's not me).
those apps would quickly get deleted and never run again, and there would be lots of negative ratings as a result.
Exactly, the results are all negative.
Thus abusing such an API would be counter to the developers' best interests.
Yeah, spammers and scammers really seem to care about their reputation.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black