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.

Comments

Customer Service : My Screen is Broken

[tjstork]

Hello Apple? I have a problem with my iPhone. Every time it shows an advertisement, the screen gets smashed. Can you help?

Re:Customer Service : My Screen is Broken

[Anonymous Coward]

I was seriously starting to consider buying an iPhone. Then I see this patent, and think "I will never buy such a product".

But your post gives me hope; if everyone called apple support every time they saw an ad like this, it would be awesome.

"Hello Apple? I was dialing 9-1-1, but I only got 9-1 in, and then this screen popped up and asked me how many horsepower are in the new lexus, and now my house has all burnt to the ground, and I had to borrow the neighbor's phone because my iPhone is unusable until I answer this stupid question. BTW, can you give me the legal department's number?"

Re:Customer Service : My Screen is Broken

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

The trouble is, with Apple, that sort of thing wouldn't happen. That's what makes them more dangerous than their competitors.

When somebody like Sony tries to pull an anti-consumer move, you get crap like UMD, or blu-ray players that need to spend 15 minutes downloading updates before your squalling brat can watch whatever disney tripe will satisfy their 15 second attention span. Or intel's ill-fated :Viiv" that nobody can pronounce and even the initial reviewers couldn't get working properly. And all this is not to mention stuff like cablecard or walmart's DRM server deactivation.

Even if joe consumer doesn't know what DRM is, has never thought about its implications, wouldn't know "software freedom" if it bit him in the ass, things like that will piss him off anyway. With apple, though, it is different. Their anti-consumer moves are so shiny, so polished, so elegant, that even people who ostensibly do care about DRM and things will come out of the woodwork to defend them.

That is what makes them problematic.

Re:Customer Service : My Screen is Broken

[TheRaven64]

People only care about DRM when it stops them doing something that they want. Few people care that they can't rip their DVDs (although a few more now that mobile devices capable of playing video are common) but a lot of people care about the unskippable segments at the start. Most people who use the iTunes store don't care about the DRM because it lets them do everything that they want. Same with Steam. The reason people hated the Sony versions is that they didn't work.

If you want people to hate DRM, don't tell them 'DRM is bad,' encourage them to do things that DRM doesn't let them do. For example, copy their music and films to their mobile phones. Then explain why they can't do it in some cases because of the DRM.

Re:Customer Service : My Screen is Broken

[ThrowAwaySociety]

Hello Apple? I have a problem with my iPhone. Every time it shows an advertisement, the screen gets smashed. Can you help?

Yes. You signed up for the ad-supported $50 iPhone, instead of the carrier-subsidized $200 iPhone. Simply return it to your AT&T store, pay the $450 ad-supported-phone termination fee.

You will then be given the option to pay $200 for the AT&T-subsidized iPhone which will not display ads. Monthly charges will apply.

Re:Customer Service : My Screen is Broken

[stupid_is]

The patent itself has screenshots of a Mac desktop, so I'd imagine this is along the lines of "Here's a subsidised computer, but you'll have to watch our ads" - which has been done many times before. Here they present a "new" implementation.

On the other hand, I'd hate to be in their legal team the first time someone comes unstuck using Skype (or equiv) from their computer for an emergency call, and obviously they've also written the patent to apply to stuff like phones & PDAs with reference to iTunes (see [0048] on p12). Odd that they didn't include language to be able to bypass this advertising for certain instances of the function being blocked (e.g. dialling 911 rather than dialling a chum).

I wonder what would happen if you 127.0.0.1 the advertising IPs in your hosts file? Conceivably you'd be bricking the box (while breaking the ToS you signed up to, too, no doubt).

Re:Customer Service : My Screen is Broken

[BrokenHalo]

they can finally sell their shiny, highly satisfying experience to everyone, not just the elite.

They could try. If I bought a device only to find it was using bandwidth I pay for to push ads at me, I would be back at the store demanding a return and refund.

Apple should learn that that kind of advertising doesn't work. Just like those "hover ads" that sit there obstructing content on a web-page until you click them. Whenever I come across one of these, I always leave the web-page and make damn sure I block the site in my hosts file. That kind of in-your-face advertising is offensive, and I will never reward the perpetrator by clicking on it.

Re:Customer Service : My Screen is Broken

[JM78]

With apple, though, it is different. Their anti-consumer moves are so shiny...

Bull. Apple is evil, granted, but their rise isn't because the masses flock to shiny, polished, gemstones. It's because their products have a history being user-friendly and bringing the power of traditional tech-only gadgetry to those who either can't or won't learn a more complex device.

I use all the mainstream platforms out there, in my work, on a daily basis. They've all got their pitfalls and suck in their own way. However, my iPhone, as a consumer device capable of doing most of the consumer-related things I want from such a device, freakin' rocks — jailbroken or not. And I am certainly not one who generally cares about shiny/polished. My complaints with my iPhone are 99.99% directed towards the telecom industry.

If Apple borked my iPhone by a) hijacking my device and pushing advertisements to my phone or worse b) forced me to interact with said advertisements, you can bet your ass the damn thing would end up in the trash.

Now, on the flipside, if Apple can implement such an action (although I don't see how seeing as how the first FF plugin I install is adblock) in a way that is non-intrusive and doesn't disrupt the joy in using a device then, who cares? Advertisements aren't inherently anti-consumer and are perfectly reasonable on the whole — anti-consumer only exists when consumers don't have a choice. As far as available devices are concerned, nobody can claim the iPhone is the only option available. The market is quite anti-competitive, as a whole, however it stems almost entirely from the telecoms; not device manufacturers.

So, write your congressmen and the FCC and tell them to turn our mobile providers into utilities and stop their collusion practices because that's where your complaint should be. Apple couldn't compete if they implemented forced advertisements in a world where mobile provider choice was on the side of consumers.

my 2 cents.

Fortunately

[imamac]

Like most companies, Apple doesn't use half of their patents. Hopefully, this will be one of those unused ones.

Re:Fortunately

[Amarantine]

Let's also hope that they won't license it to others, so we'll never see this technology in action. Seriously, do they expect anyone to appreciate this technology? (Anyone that is not in the marketing business, of course)

Re:Fortunately

[commodore64_love]

This tech is already in use on nbc.com, cwtv.com, syfy.com, and so on. When you watch their streaming videos, they expect you to click "continue" after watching the advertisement. It's their way of verifying you seeing the ad.

Re:Fortunately

[Chrisq]

If they had any sense they would have patented adverts that don't force user interaction, and thereby force all other companies to make their devices too annoying to use.

Re:Fortunately

[realityimpaired]

Depends on what the technology is being used for, doesn't it?

As an example... let's say they wanted to offer a free cellular service. In exchange for your free service, you had to watch 1 ad every 48 hours of real time, or every 30 minutes of talk time. A technology like this could allow them a way to guarantee to their investors that the ads would actually be watched, and would make it easier to fund such a service, no? They could even program the towers to return ads for businesses in range of the tower itself, essentially using geolocating in order to target the ads to people who might actually buy from the businesses in question without having to actually spy on you at all. They could implement it to be essentially non-intrusive while you're using the service... for the free cell phone example, it could, for example, queue up an ad so that once you're done your current conversation you need to watch it in order to make another call (but wouldn't block incoming calls)... it doesn't have to interrupt you mid-sentence with advertising.

It's all about how they use it that really determines whether it's an ethical patent. If they're using it as a way to guarantee funding for an essentially free service, then great. If they're using it to force advertising down your throats when you've already paid or are paying for the service, then bad.

Re:Fortunately

[Anonymous Coward]

Hopefully they won't polyester you to click it though.

Re:Fortunately

[amoeba1911]

You can wander off, and come back to find:
Thank you for watching the advertisement, please enter the advertised product's name to continue.

On a bigger scale, does it bother anyone else that we live in a world where we pay for things by watching advertisements? The advertisers then charge us extra money for the products they're selling so they can pay for the advertisements, which in turn take up our time. So in a way these advertisements cost us double:
1. we spend the time to watch them
2. we collectively endure the cost of producing and distributing these advertisements
... and we don't enjoy either part!
So, what is the purpose of an advertisement? If a new product is coming out, we can find out on the review sites to figure out what sucks and what rocks. Maybe the advertisement's purpose is to appeal to your weaknesses and make you get a product without looking at the reviews. In my experience I have discovered that usually the crappiest products/services are the ones with the heaviest advertising and the good ones are busy doing real work instead of wasting time/money on advertisements.
I think advertisements have gone too far, and advertising is a drain on the resources of a world with finite resources.
How about they don't waste? Don't waste time making the ad, don't waste money airing the ad, don't waste my time making me watch a stupid ad. Invest money in making a better product that you genuinely care about instead of trying to convince people to buy your tripe.

Great idea

[T.E.D.]

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.

Annoyance ads

[bluefoxlucid]

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.

Nothing new, but I can imagine horrible outcomes..

[KreAture]

- 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...)

Want to bypass the enforceable advertising?

[L4t3r4lu5]

There's no app for that.

Re:Nothing new, but I can imagine horrible outcome

[Phroggy]

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!

I tell you who will like this feature:

[Weaselmancer]

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?

Mod parent UP

[KingSkippus]

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.)