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...)
There's no app for that.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
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?
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;
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.
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.
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.