Forced iAds Coming To OS X?

mario_grgic writes "Apple insider brings a story about expansion and renewal of a current 'Advertisement in Operating System' patent that Apple's Steve Jobs and other contributors have. The patent describes in detail (with OS X screen shots) how the forced ads would work (they would disable some OS functionality until the ad is viewed), but apparently it also applies to any device with a UI, including phones, TVs, set top boxes, etc. With Apple's recent entry into the mobile ad business, and its ambition to own half of all the mobile ads served during the second half of this year, it certainly makes one wonder if Apple would dare and put something like this in its desktop OS. I wonder if this would push more people to open source alternatives?"

Comments

Interesting Spin in the Summary

[eldavojohn]

With recent Apple entry into mobile ad business, and ambition to own half of all the mobile ads served in second half of this year, it certainly makes one wonder if Apple would dare and put something like this in its desktop OS. I wonder if this would push more people to open source alternatives?

I see what you did there. You made an unlikely assumption about how this patent would be used and then you turned it into an advertisement for open source. Well done. I hate Apple and Steve Jobs (smug bastard) vehemently but even I recognized that to be a highly contrived scenario and illogical statement.

But when I read the article, it seemed to make other assumptions about how this patent would be used. Assumptions that frankly make a whole hell of a lot more sense than asking users who have already paid a premium for an Apple desktop to watch iAds to further increase your profits. From the article:

Such a system could be used on computers placed in public places, allowing free access to the Internet on a terminal without paying a fee. Users could also choose to pay the fee and avoid the advertisements if they wish.

Huh. Imagine that. You know, when I walk through an airport I see people sitting around watching LCDs. And in between these CNN content sections are advertisements. That everyone seems to tolerate. I would wager that if you put in terminals with ads for internet access at airports, there would be an unending line to use them. Given that I only got free internet at an airport when Google felt generous last holiday season, I'd gladly use it and gladly watch ads.

Furthermore I pay $75+ per month for a smartphone with a data plan. This is the cheapest option and it includes a 20% off employer discount. If you could cut this in half with this sort of ad crap in the OS, you just might convince me to hop off of my Android operating system and on to crApple ... even a different carrier.

Like you, I am adverse to ad watching when I have already paid for something under the assumption I will be given unmitigated access to it. Like anyone else who has watched TV over the airwaves, I am interested in how you can reduce my financial liabilities via nominal time goblin advertisements and, while I'm certainly no economist, I believe that advertisements are very healthy for the economy. The market adjusts if they become too invasive or unhealthy (people revolt against the products using such tactics) but it results in more cash in my pocket to make more purchases with and entices me to make more purchases. Google's basically been minting money with them and has maintained a (for the most part) positive relationship with its consumers--despite those "consumers" being the very product they sell to other companies!

While I'm not a big fan of Design Patents (which I think this is), I think Apple could pull this off and generate some interest in yet further proliferation of ads. We all complain when we pay for something like a video game only to get DLC ads but I think if you popped a free ad laden iDevice into someone's hands they'd quit complaining fairly quickly.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[SquarePixel]

Exactly, and it's only like 30 seconds of quality advertisements. I doubt Apple will put just any crap in there. Are you really so busy that you can't relax for 30 seconds?

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[countertrolling]

It won't push them to open source. It will push them to Microsoft Windows. It's like saying when the democrats screw up, people will vote third party, when in truth, they'll vote republican... again.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[mark72005]

I've paid good money for this PC. Why should anyone but me decide when I relax and when I should be able to work?

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[PolyDwarf]

I see what you did there. You made an unlikely assumption about how this patent would be used and then you turned it into an advertisement for open source. Well done. I hate Apple and Steve Jobs (smug bastard) vehemently but even I recognized that to be a highly contrived scenario and illogical statement.

I don't see how you're able to say that it's "unlikely" and "highly contrived", considering there's a mockup of an osx-ish desktop in the article. The other portion you quoted about that it "could" be used for public kiosks, etc, doesn't say it *won't* be used for anything else. Especially when further in the article it specifically notes that it applies to anything with a UI, like set top boxes, smart phones, TV's, and others. Those aren't really public kiosk devices.

What's next... having to sit through an advertisement on my smartphone to make a call? Or is that too unlikely and contrived, given that the article mentions this can be used on smartphones, with no further qualification?

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[VolciMaster]

What airports do you fly through? Several I use frequently have freely-available wifi (BDL, LEX, ALB to name three)

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[rinoid]

I see what you did there. You made an unlikely assumption about how this patent would be used and then you turned it into an advertisement for open source. Well done. I hate Apple and Steve Jobs (smug bastard) vehemently but even I recognized that to be a highly contrived scenario and illogical statement.

You lost me on "hate" and "smug bastard" and later on in your post "crApple" ... this kind of talk is nonsense and whatever else you said sounded like the other end of a phone call in a Charlie Brown cartoon.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[putch]

what? public kiosks? it's 2010. in 5 years most of the country will have a multicore computer with 4g wireless in their pocket and you think people will want to stand around and use a shared computer? why? to do what?

I mean, yeah, there's some spin in this article. But i've seen far far worse on slashdot. It makes a huge leap from "will apple actually do it" to "will people start installing linux" which is fairly preposterous. But it seems clear that apple is at least contemplating a version of iAds for the desktop space. and it might be something some subset of users would tolerate or embrace. However, it's kind of fanboish to just dismiss the question with some crazy kiosk talk and a "no big deal" defense of ads.

honestly though, i think the important question here is: if they have desktop iAds will they start a desktop app store? now THAT would be a big change for the consumer desktop world.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[Mitchell314]

Because your boss can fire you?

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[openfrog]

I see what you did there. You made an unlikely assumption about how this patent would be used and then you turned it into an advertisement for open source. Well done. I hate Apple and Steve Jobs (smug bastard) vehemently but even I recognized that to be a highly contrived scenario and illogical statement.

But when I read the article, it seemed to make other assumptions about how this patent would be used. Assumptions that frankly make a whole hell of a lot more sense than asking users who have already paid a premium for an Apple desktop to watch iAds to further increase your profits. From the article:

Such a system could be used on computers placed in public places, allowing free access to the Internet on a terminal without paying a fee. Users could also choose to pay the fee and avoid the advertisements if they wish.

Furthermore I pay $75+ per month for a smartphone with a data plan. This is the cheapest option and it includes a 20% off employer discount. If you could cut this in half with this sort of ad crap in the OS, you just might convince me to hop off of my Android operating system and on to crApple ... even a different carrier. .

Interesting. You accuse the parent of speculating on the likely use of this patent, but you end up building up a scenario that is very close to this very speculation... and you say you would want it.

I would never tolerate advertising messing with my OS, under any pretext and notwithstanding any promise. If this is allowed to go on, there will be no end to it, and it will not cost you a cent less in the end.

Thank you, but No.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[mr_gorkajuice]

We're supposedly talking about a PC you didn't pay money for.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[AlecC]

I no longer have a television, in part because of the ads. I would far rather read a book than watch TV with ads at an airport. I don't mind print ads, and I don't mind the ads on Google/GMail, because they are easy to ignore unless (as sometimes happens) I am interested. But anything in the form "watch this before you get what you want" will put me off very, very soon. A lot of videos I come across on Stumbleupon are now like this: watch 20-30 seconds of ad before you get whatever you came to see. I am usually clicking away within five seconds.

All right, I realise that I am at the extreme end, but if this gets between users and functionality they want, I can see it getting very unpopular.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[rinoid]

Facts:

1. Apple's computer unit sales have increased more than any other PC manufacturer in the past few years.
2. Apple's margins on their computers is the highest in the industry
3. Apple's profit on computer sales is very high
4. Apple's profit on phone sales is higher than many other vendors COMBINED
5. Apple's been in the smart phone business 3 years and has managed to sweep a segment into majority play
6. Apple's iPad, out for almost one quarter, is seen to be eating into low end, very low margin products from other vendors (cough::netbooks::/cough)

I don't believe there is all that much trouble on Apple's product pricing. True there will always be pressure to reduce prices, thereby reducing margins. However, Apple have decided to sale above that fray and have proven thus far successful.

What if this is a way to give away Mac OS X for use on DIY hardware?

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Judging by the idiotic statements made by many slashdotters (including you, obviously), y'all are just so stupid that you can't understand the simple fact that iAds is about allowing developers to give the option of paying for the app via watching ads. It is not about the OS randomly bombarding users with ads. Fucking idiot slashtrolls...
--
...and the horse you rode in on!

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

I see what you did there. You made an unlikely assumption about how this patent would be used and then you turned it into an advertisement for open source. Well done. I hate Apple and Steve Jobs (smug bastard) vehemently but even I recognized that to be a highly contrived scenario and illogical statement.

You lost me on "hate" and "smug bastard" and later on in your post "crApple" ... this kind of talk is nonsense and whatever else you said sounded like the other end of a phone call in a Charlie Brown cartoon.

You're clearly an M$ shill ...

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[Anonymous Coward]

1. If you go from selling 1 computer to 2 computers, you have just increased your sales by 100%. Apples volume to very low compared to Dell or HP, so woopdy doo..

2. You got that right. Apple tax! Enjoy!
3. Point 2 answered that one, this is redundant.
4. Yes they have high phone sales, so which vendors do they have higher sales on combined? The Kin and the nexus??
5. well duh, too obvious of a point.
6. Different products for different markets, iPads don't eat into netbook sales. Even without the iPon on the market, netbook sales would slow any way (market saturation).

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[hammer_gaidin]

I agree. I have stopped watching TV, even though I pay for the service, instead deciding to watch videos via hulu or companies website. And thanks to adblock i get minimal ads. Maybe I am a lost breed, one that believes if I pay for a service I do not want to see these ads. As for companies offering a subsidized pricing because of ad support. I believe that is a good idea, as long as they are still going to offer an ad free service. It may not be the solution for me, but for some one else sure.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[Archangel Michael]

It's like saying when the democrats screw up, people will vote third party, when in truth, they'll vote republican... again.

And in four years, they'll vote the Democrats back, but with a (R) president (or Hillary) knowing exactly what to expect, but hoping they are wrong.

I really wish third parties got together, setting aside their differences and pooling their national campaigns into a "status quo (D) and (R) sucks, vote third party" type campaign.

Two party system sucks, and one party cannot represent the constituency it is supposed to represent.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[BrokenHalo]

Why should anyone but me decide when I relax and when I should be able to work?

Because you're supposed to think different. [So long as it's how Apple tells you to think.] Before the fanboys go up in flames, I'll point out a disclaimer: this is typed on a (second-hand hand-me-down) MacBook...

Apple is (I hope) simply taking out the patent to stake out the ground before Microsoft does the same. The line (from TFA) that says:" ...delaying an ad by 10 minutes, or choosing to watch one immediately. This would help to ensure that the ad is not overly intrusive" would not go down well with any reasonable person, since all ads are intrusive, and in at least one case (i.e. mine) would lead to deletion of OS X and replacement with Linux.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[nomadic]

You honestly would not characterize Jobs as smug? Seriously?

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[socz]

Whats wrong with crapple? Oh, it must not be right to change how a word/name is said when it's something YOU like.

As usual with slang, the special vocabulary of hackers helps hold places in the community and expresses shared values and experiences. Also as usual, not knowing the slang (or using it inappropriately) defines one as an outsider, a mundane, or (worst of all in hackish vocabulary) possibly even a suit. All human cultures use slang in this threefold way — as a tool of communication, and of inclusion, and of exclusion.

From the Jargon File, 3 Par. http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/introduction.html

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[socz]

They tried this with Net Zero Dialup Internet service many years ago... the response was great! But the company couldn't sustain that model because there were too many tools to disable or completely remove the advertisement. As you all know, they had ads on the screen, and the ad providers paid for your free service. So no ads = no clicking on ads = no selling/buying = no more free dialup inet.

I hate to say it but this "could be good for some random person," but definitely not for most. I'll stick to the real deal, FreeBSD.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like we don't have to pay to watch cable thanks to ads?

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[rinoid]

Yeah whatever.

It's simply that commenting in such a manner (using absolute, hateful, denigrating terms) on the internet is not productive. Not At All. Used in this way it's not even sport. It's not even a taunt, it's just blindness.

I aim to point it out where possible.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[Mitchell314]

the desktop environment that does not lend itself to heavy multitasking

How's that? With expose and spaces, I personally find it easier.

and the poorly organized layout which makes Spotlight the main way to access your files and programs

How's it poorly organized? Okay, Finder seems to have a weird view of the file system hierarchy near the top, but then again, most of that stuff is in the sidebar.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[rinoid]

I've not met the man.

In his presentations he seems quite confident about the Designs and products he presents, this is certain.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[BrokenHalo]

I no longer have a television, in part because of the ads. I would far rather read a book than watch TV with ads at an airport.

I'm with you. At least, up to a point. I didn't have a TV of my own until I was 35, and I use it more for watching DVDs than free-to-air, simply because I would rather buy(!) a boxed set of a given series once the season's over than sit through the ads.

And books are a lot quieter at any time...

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[dsoltesz]

So, do you believe Apple will create/buy a new ad delivery platform to deliver "Advertisement in Operating System" instead of using iAds?

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[joeyblades]

Apple's margins on their computers is the highest in the industry

This may be technically correct with respect to the hardware, but Apple subsidizes their OS and application development costs with some of that margin. When you buy a Mac, you get the hardware plus OSX, iTunes, Time Machine, Mail, iChat, Safari, Front Row, GarageBand, iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD, etc....

Now you might be inclined to think that this is true of any PC you buy, but I think if you look at the software that's in the boxes and compare you will see that Apple provides much more commercial quality software than the typical PC you might buy. That software cost money to develop and a large portion of that money comes from hardware sales.

Not trying to beat you up - merely pointing out that you are comparing Apples and oranges... so-to-speak.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[Bert64]

Many of these public kiosks would be in airports, most people use airports to fly to countries other than their native one...
When you're in a foreign country, data service on your cellphone via roaming becomes extremely expensive.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Yeah whatever.

It's simply that commenting in such a manner (using absolute, hateful, denigrating terms) on the internet is not productive. Not At All. Used in this way it's not even sport. It's not even a taunt, it's just blindness.

I aim to point it out where possible.

I was joking-- hopefully obviously, but written word's a funny thing. Anyway, I agree -- I tend to stop reading when I see that kind of post. When I see someone claiming to "hate" a person they've never met and can't possibly know it's usually a good sign that there's not much content of worth. Phrasing that includes "M$", "crApple", "Winblows", "Linsux" and the various other flavors just come across as juvenile; if you have to resort to name-calling, it's pretty hard to take anything you say seriously.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[geekmansworld]

Pretty much. Nobody is forcing you people to use a Mac. If you don't like Apple products, don't use them. There's no need for OS crusades and spreading FUD.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[beelsebob]

There are a large number of things that I hate Apple products for, the desktop environment that does not lend itself to heavy multitasking (from a user perspective), the absurdly militant device compatibility rules (can't get any data on or off your iPhone unless it goes through iTunes from the same PC you used to set it up) and the poorly organized layout which makes Spotlight the main way to access your files and programs. iAds will go a long way to adding to the annoyance that is the Apple experience.

You first confess that you haven't used apple's products, and then make unjustified sweeping statements about it's usability. Apple come features like Exposé which allow very very easy multitasking, and you simply say "it doesn't lend itself to heavy multitasking" with no justification. Exactly what about OS X does not lend itself to heavy multitasking? Exactly what about the "poorly organized layout" makes it difficult to find your files? What is not organized well?

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[Bing Tsher E]

When you buy a Mac, you get the hardware plus OSX, iTunes, Time Machine, Mail, iChat, Safari, Front Row, GarageBand, iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD, etc....

I don't think anybody here is going to deny that due to the paucity of third party apps for their platform, Apple has felt obligated to provide an entire desktop stackup of apps to get people to buy their machine. It's good of them to not give people the 1984 Mac experience when MacPaint and MacWrite were about it. (and neither was a free bundle with the system)

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[VGPowerlord]

1, 2, 3. According to the Q2 2010 statistics, Apple is 4th place in the US with 9.8% of the market. Ahead of them are (3rd) Acer with 11.3%, (2nd) Dell with 23.7%, and (1st) HP with 25.7%.

Apple doesn't even make the top 6 world-wide; number 6 has 5.1%, so it's less than that.

6.

"The consumer PC market registered double-digit shipment growth, but consumer mobile shipment growth slowed. This was due in part to slower growth of mini-notebooks," Ms. Kitagawa said. "Surging popularity of Apple's iPad temporarily cannibalized mini-notebooks, as well as consumer notebook sales to some degree. It is not certain at this stage if the cannibalization will continue with the current price point of media tablets."

-- Gartner, talking about the US computer market

What does this mean? It means that (in the US market), the iPad has stolen some of the mini-notebook (AKA Netbook) growth, but it is still a growing market segment.

Source: Gartner Says Worldwide PC Shipments Increased 21 Percent in Second Quarter of 2010

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[Bing Tsher E]

To some of 'The Rest Of Us' he comes off as a smug marketing type.

Turtleneck dude KNOWS he is preaching to his choir.

It's good that you capitalized 'Designs' so we know you're using the word as a proper noun.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[CohibaVancouver]

it's 2010. in 5 years most of the country will have a multicore computer with 4g wireless in their pocket and you think people will want to stand around and use a shared computer? why? to do what?

There will still be a small market for these things for people from other jurisdictions. I'm Canadian - When I'm in the USA or Europe the roaming charges on my smartphone are so painful I don't turn it on. There are tons of stories about Americans travelling in Mexico and returning to $5000 mobile phone bills. Many airports have WiFi that you could connect to instead, but it might cost $20. I can't see that changing any time soon.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[Lumpy]

Major insightful..

dell pc comes with - 3 buckets of crapware, to bags of trialware, and 1 spoon of real apps MS Works...

Everything else is junk from the Mcaffee internet panic attack to the MS office 30 day nag trial to all the games that are nothing more than junk to get the machine full of ad's.

A OSX machine, even the lowest mac mini comes with a music editor, video editor, DVD video authoring app, Photo manager and basic editor, Backup solution and media organizer. None are cripple ware or 30 day trials... thay all are full retail versions.

The windows guys really want you to ignore that fact.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[CoffeeDog]

If you RTFA:

"According to the patent application, users could also choose to access the advertisements when they choose, delaying an ad by 10 minutes, or choosing to watch one immediately. This would help to ensure that the ad is not overly intrusive, appearing while the user was in the middle of an important task."

You're right they aren't "randomly bombarding users with ads" they are "regularly bombarding users with ads".

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[Lumpy]

Honestly...

I would characterize the man as "odd" or "very wierd"... Smug would be too loose of a term to describe it.

I have met the man, he is a wierd bird. But then insane amounts of money tend to do that to you.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[Savage-Rabbit]

I see what you did there. You made an unlikely assumption about how this patent would be used and then you turned it into an advertisement for open source. Well done. I hate Apple and Steve Jobs (smug bastard) vehemently but even I recognized that to be a highly contrived scenario and illogical statement.

I don't see how you're able to say that it's "unlikely" and "highly contrived", considering there's a mockup of an osx-ish desktop in the article. The other portion you quoted about that it "could" be used for public kiosks, etc, doesn't say it *won't* be used for anything else. Especially when further in the article it specifically notes that it applies to anything with a UI, like set top boxes, smart phones, TV's, and others. Those aren't really public kiosk devices.

People with a major Apple bashing fetish can go on constructing wild conspiracy theories based on this patent all they want but I'm not particularly worried. Applying for a patent is one thing, using it is quite another. If Apple starts forcing people who paid anywhere from $699 (entry level MacMini) to $3.299 (top of the line 8-core Mac Pro) to watch iAds on their desktop OS, Apple will start losing business really quickly. They'd be shooting them selves in the foot much, much worse than Microsoft did with Windows Vista, Windows ME and Clippy combined. I know I'd switch my MacBook to Linux faster than you can say "Ubuntu".

What's next... having to sit through an advertisement on my smartphone to make a call? Or is that too unlikely and contrived, given that the article mentions this can be used on smartphones, with no further qualification?

A version of that idea was actually tried by a company in Denmark years and years ago. IIRC you got a free GSM service but you had to put up with ads when you made calls. It didn't work, I am willing to bet it also failed miserably wherever else it was tried and it will fail miserably if anybody ever tries that idiotic idea again.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[Lumpy]

Let's hope it's a whole lot better than the current offering... which means that cellphone companies get regulated and forced to deliver real bandwidth....

My 4G speeds are as bad as my 3G... Yeah I have a huge amount of download speed, but upload is so throttled that it's barely faster than a 56K modem.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[Nixoloco]

There are a large number of things that I hate Apple products for, the desktop environment that does not lend itself to heavy multitasking (from a user perspective), ... the poorly organized layout which makes Spotlight the main way to access your files and programs. iAds will go a long way to adding to the annoyance that is the Apple experience.

Bring on the enforced ad watching.

What are you talking about? OSX lends itself wonderfully to multitasking from all perspectives. Expose + Spaces are phenomenal for running multiple applications even supporting multiple desktops to break up tasks which is all well supported by the underlying Unix based OS. Also, what is so hard about accessing files and programs? You have a home directory for your data and an applications directory for programs? If you want something even better, install Quicksilver or Launchbar.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[Lumpy]

Many of these public kiosks would be in airports, most people use airports to fly to countries other than their native one...

Friends in germany, Great Britian and italy would disagree with you. Most of europe either drives or takes the train. Why fly when it's less than a 1 hour drive to the next country.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[mario_grgic]

I put that part in there because that is certainly something I myself would do. I'm currently heavily invested into Apple hardware, but if Apple would do something like this (introduced ads into the desktop OS where they can't be skipped over) I would definitely switch to Linux full time (and perhaps Windows for Photoshop and video editing). I already develop software for Linux at work (among other OSes), so might as well use it for personal needs at home too.

As a matter of fact, the mere fact that we are having this discussion, that I initiated by posting the story, is making me re-think any further investment into Apple platform. This is something that goes pretty much against everything I believe in and I don't want to support it by buying more Apple products. Even rumors about something like this are damaging to Apple's bottom line as far as I'm concerned and Apple, if they were a more transparent corporation, should clarify their intentions with this patent. But, as we all know Apple is not exactly transparent and they will never make a statement on this.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[Americano]

And if you read the article further, instead of selectively quoting, you see they also talk about offering the option to "pay" for the service so you don't have to "watch the ads."

As far as "bombarding" goes... you keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[GarryFre]

Depends on how intrusive it is, but pissing people off is a good way to un-sell.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[yodleboy]

net zero press releases to the contrary, the real reasons net zero failed would include

1. The expanding availability of broadband
2. Did anyone look at the ads? I don't recall using anything to block ads from netZero, i just remember them fading into the background mentally.
3. Poor to non existent customer service
4. Insufficient bandwidth connecting to backbone. If you were lucky enough to connect at 56k, it made no difference because you were sharing too little bandwidth with everyone else.

Note to Steve, my computer is NOT your personal channel into my home. I'm really surprised by the number of posts on here saying that this is even a remotely good concept. If it were MS proposing this one, the Apple contingent would be up in arms and major media would be predicting the end of the world and/or MS. With Apple it's so insidious, like a little sugar with the poison. Every move they make is designed to bring in more revenue by locking you in a little more and making you feel good about giving up a little more control. I just get a creepy vibe from Apple that I've never gotten from another company before.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[TheRedDuke]

Don't forget all the royalties they make on content sold through the various iTunes stores. That's a significant percentage of their gross/profit.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[Americano]

I also think that Apple can't afford to not do this. They have been forced to reduce their prices on their hardware, eating away their margins. I don't think that they would be able to continue to provide the level of support as well as the heavyweight retail presence with margins continuing to fall. Ads would increase the value to the bottom line of each sale.

Yeah, the slowly eroding margins are why they're printing fucking money with all their products with the possible exception of Apple TV. Have you watched their revenues and profits over the past few years?

Hint: Up is not Down.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[bonch]

Your the logic is silly. Just because there's nothing saying it won't be used for anything else, doesn't mean it is going to be used for everything else. It also suggests your complete lack of experience with Apple products, because Apple would never force ads on anyone. It would be against their snobby design aesthetic.

This is most likely for Apple TV and also for free, ad-supported OS X apps, just as there are free, ad-supported iOS apps. Apple files crazy patents all the time with crazy mock-ups, and if you've been following Apple sites for a few years, you'd know that a lot of these never show up in released products anyway, but if this sees the light of day, Apple TV is in all likelihood where it will show up.

The contrived scenario the grandparent post was describing was the leap from assumption to assumption made by the submitter to reach the conclusion that people would somehow be driven to open source. It's an arbitrary appeal to the Slashdot crowd when open source has nothing at all to do with the topic.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[eldavojohn]

I appreciate you taking responsibility for that last line and trying to explain the logic behind it.

I'm still confused though. What would motivate Apple to put this in an update to OSX on user's desktops that they paid full price for? If Apple was hurting for cash or if OSX development was a big losing force, I could see that. But the simple fact is that Apple just posted its largest revenues and $3.25 billion in profit last quarter. They are doing really well, what need is there for this on the desktop of existing machines? If it's on there for app developers to push out apps for free with ad revenue tied into the OS and controlled by Apple then I could see that. But you simply wouldn't download any ad supported applications if you didn't want that. I assume this "feature" could go on any of their operating systems and be used to mitigate the price of iDevices in the future.

As a matter of fact, the mere fact that we are having this discussion, that I initiated by posting the story, is making me re-think any further investment into Apple platform.

If you're bought into Apple, you've already paid a pretty penny. I'm really confused why applying for a design patent causes you more remorse than the amount of money you've already shelled out but to each their own I guess. Before you switch to Linux, consider that this patent can be used in good way and in a very very bad way. And given that you're willing to buy Apple gear, it's highly likely you never experience this user ad supported interface. It just wouldn't make sense for Apple to force this onto desktop users.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[GweeDo]

Music Editor - nothing bundled with Win7 there
Video Editor - Movie Maker
DVD Video Authoring App - Movie Maker
Photo Manager - Photo Gallery
Backup Solution - Backup and Restore
Media Organizer - Windows Media Player

So...what was your point again?

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[westlake]

1. Apple's computer unit sales have increased more than any other PC manufacturer in the past few years.
2. Apple's margins on their computers is the highest in the industry
3. Apple's profit on computer sales is very high

Apple makes the Apple computer. No one else.

The Apple PC has always been an up-market, high-margin product.

The rest of the world competes for their share of the Windows market - which is still 90% of the PC market - and there are a lot of players here.

5. Apple's been in the smart phone business 3 years and has managed to sweep a segment into majority play

I am not sure what this means.

In terms of web browsing, the iPhone has a 0.59% share of market, the iPad 0.17% Operating System Market Share

The primary purpose of a mobile phone remains the mobile phone call.

6. Apple's iPad, out for almost one quarter, is seen to be eating into low end, very low margin products from other vendors (cough::netbooks::/cough)

I think it has become very clear that the netbook has little to offer beyond a slight increase in mobility.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[Americano]

Maybe I am a lost breed, one that believes if I pay for a service I do not want to see these ads.

If by "lost breed," you mean "someone who has expectations for service quality that are unrealistic given the relatively small amount he pays for the service," then yes.

You do realize that if they stopped advertising altogether and went to a completely subscriber-funded model, that you would see either a DRASTIC reduction in the breadth of programming ("doesn't everybody want to watch Friends on a loop for 5 hours a day on the one channel we offer?"), or a DRASTIC increase in the cost of the service?

Alternately, you'd see a bunch of college art films made on someone's iPhone, with the acting skill & production qualities of Victorian-era porn.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[ljw1004]

while I'm certainly no economist, I believe that advertisements are very healthy for the economy. The market adjusts if they become too invasive or unhealthy (people revolt against the products using such tactics) but it results in more cash in my pocket to make more purchases with and entices me to make more purchases.

That's a very wrong way to look at the economy of ads. Ask yourself: where does that "cash in your pocket" actually come from? Answer: it comes from YOU, the consumer, through the higher prices you pay for everything.

I've only heard the figures for 1999. But then, if you took the entire amount spent on advertising in the US and divided it by the population, it worked out at $6k per person (young, old, everyone).

That's basically a $6k TAX that you're paying every year solely for the privilege of having ads thrust in your face.

I hate it.

The economist's view is that ads are good inasmuch as they make a more perfect marketplace, i.e. they increase knowledge and awareness on the part of the consumer so they can make the best rational economic decision. (conversely, ads which *distort* these decisions, by appealing to emotion or creating buzz about style rather than substance, are bad for the economy).

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[rolfwind]

Like you, I am adverse to ad watching when I have already paid for something under the assumption I will be given unmitigated access to it. Like anyone else who has watched TV over the airwaves, I am interested in how you can reduce my financial liabilities via nominal time goblin advertisements and, while I'm certainly no economist, I believe that advertisements are very healthy for the economy. The market adjusts if they become too invasive or unhealthy (people revolt against the products using such tactics) but it results in more cash in my pocket to make more purchases with and entices me to make more purchases. Google's basically been minting money with them and has maintained a (for the most part) positive relationship with its consumers--despite those "consumers" being the very product they sell to other companies!

Cable was supposed to be ad-free. While I'm not against Apple here, I would like to say that I don't care if it makes something $20 a month cheaper, I'll pay that just not to work around the ads and have my device stay my device. In TV, ads are not nominal time goblins, they take at least 1/3 of the programming. My time spent watching TV dropped drastically when I watch it online because I can skip most of the bullshit.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[mini me]

Apple's share of the US consumer market is approximately 30% based on the numbers I can find. Apple doesn't compete in the corporate market, so looking at that market does not tell us much.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[adonoman]

A Windows machine, even the lowest comes with a video editor, DVD video authoring app, Photo manager and basic editor, Backup solution and media organizer. None are cripple ware or 30 day trials... they all are full retail versions.

The mac guys really want you to ignore that fact.

FTFY

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[thesandtiger]

And full-on developer tools for free. Not an incentive for 99% of the Mac userbase, but I find it really nice.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[Golias]

Just like we don't have to pay to watch cable thanks to ads?

We don't. I don't pay a dime for my TV service, but rather get it for free over-the-air (and via Hulu) thanks to ads.

Nobody HAS to pay for cable. Some people CHOOSE to. And they pay less than they would if cable channels had no ads.

If you want to buy ad-free viewing, get a NetFlix account and watch via Instant streaming.

Hooray for consumer choice!

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[mini me]

False. 65000 iPhones activated a day. 150,000 android phones get activated every day.

And I could have 1,000,000 activations of my phone each day if I was to give it away for free. Number of activations don't mean anything with respect to profit.

Also, I believe he was referring to this article. http://www.businessinsider.com/you-cant-appreciate-how-completely-apple-has-humiliated-rim-nokia-and-the-rest-of-the-gadget-industry-until-you-see-these-charts-2010-7

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[coolsnowmen]

The backup/restore on OSX is better than windows XP/Vista IMHO. If your XP machine died, restoring your files on your new win 7 machine from backup is a PAIN. While migrating from one OSX to another was great.

iTunes is better than WMP from an organizational standpoint (though it is available for windows).

I've heard OSX's video authoring is better than window's but I don't have first hand knowledge because most people I know either use something free or go full with Adobe Premier

Photo Managers are a dime a dozen, I use an open source one; and again with music editors, I use audacity on everything.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[VGPowerlord]

Apple's share of the US consumer market is approximately 30% based on the numbers I can find. Apple doesn't compete in the corporate market, so looking at that market does not tell us much.

and which statistics are those?

I linked to the statistics I was quoting from, which were by a well known statistics tracking group.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[mpfife]

Agree it'll push them to MS before open-source; and agree with the original response that the post was written by a open-source troll.

Remember who your average Apple buyer is: rich housewives, kids of upper-middle class that shop at Hollister, not-hugely-geeky tech men who are looking for some image/ease of use. Most of the people that buy Mac's bought them for 1. looks/image, 2. 'easy' to use 3. they could get it at their local mall. Apple users by and large do NOT care about open source or the fact OSX is build on BSD. They don't care what their little iPod/iPad runs on. They know it's cool and they want one. They want someone to drop it off with and fix it if there's any problem. They don't want to think about the device. It's NOT an audience that by-and-large cares about open-source. They just want to get more iTunes, be able to text message, and look cool doing facebook in a coffee shop.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[selven]

His post was a very rational and cogent argument and in this discussion it was even taking the pro-Apple side. There is nothing wrong with hating Apple, Microsoft, the US government or any other organization, and the fact that you disregarded the rest of his post because he dared express his opinion shows that you're either too lazy to read the post and prefer focusing on whatever single words stand out or you yourself are an intolerant pro-Apple fanatic.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[Bryan3000000]

More likely that they would embed the code in a browser and you could get free wifi on your device by watching ads.

That would accomplish your purpose, which might be cool, but perhaps the whole technology would also introduce vulnerabilities. Imagine visiting a certain website and from then on, you get periodic ads for viagra and pr0n whenever you surf. Apple is developing the back-end for a browser-spam trojan embedded in the OS.

Let's not forget how many companies have been vilified for doing exactly the same thing on Windows. It's generally called spyware. You remember - some of your friends must have downloaded that cool program that put a dancing purple ape on your screen that watched your browsing habits and periodically suggested products. Later, another program let you design your own avatar, and they bought serious prime-time tv advertising time to promote downloads. Can't recall the name of that one...

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[Bryan3000000]

The developers will develop apps that do some trivial thing and also install an iAds extension. Don't forget how many developers have spent serious time developing trojan spyware whose main purpose is to deliver targeted ads at random intervals.

These are not the developers Apple should be courting.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[jellomizer]

Welcome to the 21st century. Where all content will be taken out of context. And judged purely based on worse case scenarios situations.

We need to be outraged even more... There is so much stuff happening in the world and there seems to be someone who really hates one thing or an other... And we must all try to fit in so we learn to hate everything.

I am starting to think that Blogs weren't a good idea.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[l0ungeb0y]

"I hate Apple and Steve Jobs (smug bastard) vehemently ... crApple"

And I hate smug arrogant geeks who get off on hating things.
Writing crap like that turns your entire post into a load of puerile drivel.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[ToasterMonkey]

Have you used any of those on either side?
Bonus points for using something on both.

Your observation that Windows 7 has caught up to OS X in many ways is accurate, but I don't think you're in a position to compare anything.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[macs4all]

It's NOT an audience that by-and-large cares about open-source. They just want to get more iTunes, be able to text message, and look cool doing facebook in a coffee shop.

Actually, I think you just described about 99% of the computer-buying public in general.

No wonder Apple is doing so good and Linux is just about nonexistent on the the desktop, eh?

By the way, you DO realize that this means that there will be MORE free software developers flocking to OS X, because a lot of people that write free software (read almost all) still enjoy getting donations, and, if the early numbers on iAds continue, it looks like they will begin to notice a fairly steady stream of income from their iAd-supported projects.

It's not the death of "Free" software; but rather the next chapter; where Free Software projects finally "pay" enough to be worth actually maintaining and improving, unlike a LOT of them, now, which seem to languish after an initial flurry of development, with bug report after bug report going unanswered and unresolved for YEARS, because the developer loses interest in supporting (for free!) a bunch of whiney freeloaders.

iAds changes all that for the DEVELOPERS of free software.

Think about it.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[Jezza]

And you delete the App... Err so? Apple also reject apps that don't add anything to the system. Try writing a version of "iFart" (no that's a real app, you push the on screen button and a "fart" sound is played - I know, go figure) and submitting it, you'll be really lucky to get it past the Apple gatekeepers.

I do have ad supported apps, I choose to keep them, so on balance the ads are a benefit.

I'm sorry what was your point again?

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[ByOhTek]

Consider this - it also allows apple another route for suing people who make invasive adware for Macs.

Maybe Apple suspects this will be a problem in the semi-near future? An extra layer of protection against tarnishing of the brand?

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[ByOhTek]

Unfortunately, with our election system, a effective third party can't last very long

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[Jezza]

All ads? What all the time? Really? I'm assuming you don't use Google to search then? So if there's an app (big window) and it has a strip at the bottom that shows ads you'd delete it even if it did something useful?

Gosh.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[Bryan3000000]

Yay! Now we'll be able to pay to "get rid of spyware trojan" programs that we foolishly download just like on Windows!

Seriously. I use Macs almost exclusively, and work as an admin for a small software company. I love Apple products. Developers WILL make this if given the tools and opportunity. Apple is opening the door for it to become accepted practice where such programs have been labeled "malware" up to now.

I'd love to see this as something else, but I can only see it as a plan to give a very shady sector of the industry some legitimacy. It's great for shady developers, but could be terrible for end users and for honest small developers.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[BasilBrush]

"When you buy a Mac, you get the hardware plus OSX, iTunes, Time Machine, Mail, iChat, Safari, Front Row, GarageBand, iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD, etc...."

I don't think anybody here is going to deny that due to the paucity of third party apps for their platform, Apple has felt obligated to provide an entire desktop stackup of apps to get people to buy their machine.

Let's examine that on a case by case basis:
iTunes - Was originally a third party app, SoundJam MP.
Time Machine - There were already several backup solutions for Mac of a similar level of quality as PC backup. Time Machine was added to OSX to take backup to a new level, way ahead of anything available on PCs.
Mail - Was already included in NextSTEP when Apple bought it. Entourage was available as a third party alternative since before OSX.
iChat - ICQ was already available before iChat. And it was the cross platform market leader back then.
Safari - Internet Explorer for Mac already existed, and was bundled.
Front Row - It's development has nothing to do with desktop Mac. It was developed for Apple TV.
GarageBand, iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD - Not sure about what was in the market before these.
iWork (Keynote, Pages, Numbers) - MS Office for Mac had long been available.
Final Cut Pro - was already an existing third party app, Apple bought it.

As far as most of the ones I know about, it's not a matter of lack of a third party app that caused Apple to develop these. It was that Apple needed apps for OS X to be significantly better than both OS 9 and Windows apps, in order to entice users off those platforms. The reason was quality not quantity.

The knock on effect of Apple creating this extremely well designed apps, is that third parties have followed in creating apps with extremely good design values. There is no shortage of OS X apps now, and it's quality is extremely high.

(There's also the special case with MS apps, that Apple needed to make sure MS didn't hold any app monopolies on the OS X platform, because of their practice of abusing monopolies.)

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[hammer_gaidin]

I am not talking about all ads. Normal TV there would be no way to accomplish this. As an example, there was a story a few weeks back about Hulu adding a premium service. However, this service did not eliminate ads. To me, it would be worth offering a service that eliminated the ads. Pandora is a good example. 40hrs a month of free pandora is a great for anyone. But for a small cost($36 when i did it) i got a year with unlimited, ad free, radio. This is a great example of how to do this service type properly. Pandora is fine for most people with ads, and limits. But for those that wish to have a better service, they are paying for it. And $36/year is not too high of a price.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[jedidiah]

> I see what you did there. You made an unlikely assumption about how
> this patent would be used and then you turned it into an advertisement
> for open source. Well done. I hate Apple and Steve Jobs (smug bastard)
> vehemently but even I recognized that to be a highly contrived scenario
> and illogical statement.

My what rose colored glasses you're wearing.

Steve would grind your grandma into crackers if he thought he could get away with it and profit from it.

Apple adware is already hear. The only question now is how far is Apple willing to push it. Will the Apple faithful be willing to push back?

Already on PhoneOS there's a good argument to be made for Free Software over just this sort of nonsense.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[jedidiah]

> Just like we don't have to pay to watch cable thanks to ads?

What? Are you posting from 1998?

Commercials on cable haven't been a problem for a LONG time if you are a trendy elite type electronics consumer (like Apple customers).

It's all about control and who has it.

If you don't have it, then you are at someone else's mercy.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[Wovel]

You are fairly clueless and obviously have little exposure to people who work with technology.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[incer]

You don't know what you're talking about. My main computer is a Macbook, my desktop at home and at work are running Sabayon Linux, the file server I set up there runs Ubuntu server, my eee runs Arch (and others, depending on the mood I'm in). I'm not a programmer, but I spend a lot of time tweaking and administrating computers.... Still I need a reliable pc for everyday and work use, and nothing beats a Mac. My previous Macbook died after 4 years of abuse (didn't actually die, let's say that the screen is almost gone and only one RAM slot works now), probably more than half a million kilometers on car, motorbike, plane and more, being used between 6 and 10 hours a day (often more), being tossed everywhere while inside my backpack, falling on the ground and more. I'd like to see another non-toughbook computer do that. And do that without ever missing a shot, too. I never had to reinstall the OS or any application, only minimal maintenance required. You sound like one of those people who criticize what they don't know. Guess what they're called.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[hobo sapiens]

I like Apple products.

I use tweetie, a twitter client. I did not pay for it. It shows me ads. I don't care because its a very good twitter client.

If my OS or some software I purchased started showing me ads, I'd be upset. If it locked certain features until I viewed the ads, I would go back to linux.

I doubt Apple is that stupid.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[Jezza]

Apple are many things, but they're not dumb. If you think Apple will screw the user experience to the point where users defect, well you've not been paying attention. Apple want to sell you hardware (and to a lesser extent software). The iAds are not the main event here. Just like the songs weren't the main event with iTunes; the main event then was to sell you an iPod - the songs were just a way to do that. The iAds are not about selling ads, they are about getting developers to create free apps that will allow Apple to sell you can iPhone/iPod/iPad. Apple want them to make some money, but don't think they are the main event here - they are just a sideshow, the main event here is selling you a iPhone/iPod/iPad (or several) and you coming back and buying again when the have new models. This is capitalism at work, Apple aren't holding a gun to your head, they are manipulating your neurones that like shiny things - quite different. Your wallet will hate it, those naughty little shiny loving neurones will love it.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[Americano]

Yay! Now we'll be able to pay to "get rid of spyware trojan" programs that we foolishly download just like on Windows!

I see you haven't bothered to read the article. Go do that now, and come back when you have something relevant to add.

Go on! I'll wait.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[jedidiah]

That rant is really funny.

I will have to remember it when I want to do something interesting with video on a Mac.

Shareware doesn't need a new nagware library to make it any more viable. Such a facility won't help if it wasn't before.

OTOH, competing against gratis is very hard. Nothing short of locking down the platform will help that.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[Wovel]

And Apple makes more profit from the iPhone than all of the Android manufacturers + Nokia make combined off every phone, including non-android phones. Which of course makes your point #2 to utterly ridiculous.

AT least your point 1 and point 4 show a consistency in convoluted logic.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[mini me]

Apple had [url=http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2008/04/01/analyst-apples-us-consumer-market-share-now-21-percent/]21% share in 2008[/url]. Plus the increases that have been reported since equals to about 30%. It is some estimation on my part because the real numbers have not been released since 2008, unfortunately. Either way, it is significantly more than 8% in the consumer market.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[mini me]

Whoops. Slashdot needs to ad vbcode support or I just need to remember to always preview my posts. Article here.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[jedidiah]

The MacOS video editor has blinders for Quicktime.

The DVD tool is similarly limited.

The photo manager assumes that your idea of organization is throwing things in a big pile.

The backup tool also suffers too much from NIH and doesn't play well with other vendor's data.

The same goes for boot disks in general, but that is an entirely different sort of rant.

If you are willing to spend money, there are better payware options for Windows. Some of these are also covered by superior freeware.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[jedidiah]

> but the politics of the situation (antitrust suits and such) make it virually impossible for MS to package any of that in with their software.

Microsoft could but they choose not to. They would immediately come into conflict with themselves.

They wouldn't give Opera or Firefox or Picasa or Skype a fair shake.

Apple is in the same position though.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[jedidiah]

> Exactly what about OS X does not lend itself to heavy multitasking?

Poor Window and virtual desktop management.

I'm not sure I would say Windows is any better though.

And no, Spaces doesn't quite cut the mustard here. It's unwieldy and awkward and slows things down.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Please, sir or madam, allow me to be the first to say "whoosh".

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[beelsebob]

Again, you've left out any specifics, exactly what is poor about the window and virtual desktop management. Exactly what is unwieldy, awkward or slow about spaces?

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[quadelirus]

Did you bother to RTFA? Or the root post you are replying to? It is clear that this is for things like internet kiosks at airports and not for your computer at home. Its an alternative to paying for internet access at a kiosk that a kiosk would have the ability (enforced by the OS) to give you the option to watch an ad rather than pay for more time. Nothing to see here, or complain about, move along. Oh, and next time read the article and the post you are replying to.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

This is the most glaring non sequitur I've seen on Slashdot in month.... And in the future, could you lay off the M$ thing? That was an eyeroller a decade ago.

That was the point. M$ came about because OP gave eldavo a hard time for "crApple" (which I agree with) ergo he must clearly be a Microsoft fanatic. [Obviously this is not correct - again this was why I posted it in the first place...]

Sigh. Skip it. It's just not as much fun when I have to explain it... I amused myself and at least one other person, and that's what counts.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[quadelirus]

That's funny. I look around my CS department and most professors and a good portion of the poorer grad students have switched to Mac. I'm just saying. (Oh, and I'm typing this from a Win7 machine.)

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[quadelirus]

Oh, just to clarify, by "poorer grad students," I'm pointing out that we grad students have less money than professors and therefore are less able to afford Macs. I did not mean a comparison between various grad students' cash flow (we're all poor, as far as I can tell).

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[quadelirus]

It is highly contrived because Apple isn't stupid and this being added to people's OSX software would be an epic fail. Only Apple Haters would see anything like that in this patent. I personally would stop using Apple products if this were added even though I'm a pretty rabid fanboy (a fact that I'm sure many smart marketers at Apple understand). And with the phone, they probably will add it to the phone to try to push down the cost of the smart phone plans--$40 bucks gets you a nice smartphone plan + ads, $100 gets you the normal no-ad smartphone plan. People will probably be willing to do it.

There are so many potential uses for this patent that it is patently stupid to take the most obviously heinous and most likely destructive-to-Apple-itself option and claim that is what the patent will be used for (that in effect is the definition of trolling). That is why the OP claims it is "highly contrived."

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[future assassin]

>dell pc comes with - 3 buckets of crapware, to bags of trialware, and 1 spoon of real apps MS Works...

A few months back I got a Dell XPS 9000 It came with windows 7 dvd, MS Works and one move dvd but can't remember what it was. I didn't see 3 buckets of crapware.

>A OSX machine, even the lowest mac mini comes with a music editor, video editor, DVD video authoring app, Photo manager and basic editor, Backup solution and media organizer. None are cripple ware or 30 day trials... thay all are full retail versions.

Before the computer arrived I already dl'd/burnt the Linux Mint 9 cd. I was ready. After unpacking the XPS I installed Mint 9 and had all the aps (Full versions) I needed for free.

Now befre you call me a Linux fanboi I like to use the right tool for the job and atm Mint 9 is that tool. If someone else comes out with a better option I'll ditch Mint/Linux and go with the new option. For me atm Windows and Apple are not an option.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[Archangel Michael]

You're right if it is a "single" third party. However if they system broke down enough that we had parties representing the SF Liberal, Southern Blue Dog, Tea Party, Neocons, and more, completely shattering the duopoly, it could and would work.

We just need to get sick enough of the current batch to do it. It would create some fairly strange bedfellows in the end, but that would break the (R) good/bad (D) bad/good paradigm with only rapes the electorate of a real voice.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[maxwells_deamon]

The OEM versions of Works that I have seen all have ads in them. Not obvious, but there none the less.

Open the wordprocessor and look to the lower right side.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[rinoid]

I understand he drives a big Mercedes and refuses to put a license plate on the thing.

Smug, not to me.

@Bing -- OK I did capitalize Designs because I wanted to intonate some level of product and experience design which transcends the everyday use of the word "design" which many apply as a color, or font choice, or pastiche.

I am trying to use Windows 7 at home ... since I dual boot with OS X to play games in Win7 I thought it'd be nice to spend an hour trying to work in Win7. The little affordances in all apps across OS X vs. Win7 blow me away. Little things like being able to hover over any window and scroll the contents -- I couldn't do this in Win7. This is Design.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[Bryan3000000]

A lot of malware developers would love to have a legitimate point of entry. Gatekeeping will continue to be necessary with this. It seems they are practically asking for attempts to subvert their system.

The real problem occurs if they extend the model outside of the iDevices. Then it would be far too easy to extend as a malware platform.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[putch]

you do realize that selling ads to small markets makes no sense?

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[Bryan3000000]

I read it. It offers nothing further. I quite understand the Apple's priority would be to prevent misuse of their system. I'm just not sure that matters. Apple has done a great job thus far - but putting an ad model in the OS is moving in a direction where devices will become unusable. Ad-supported software has existed for a long time, but so has software that misrepresents itself.

And do we really want to embrace a world where targeted advertisements surround us constantly? Of all things Apple has done, lending support to this vision is perhaps the first I truly question. We have enough to contend with Google on this point. Where would we be without them? And yet, what have we given up to get there?

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[the phantom]

Honestly, windoze, windblows, M$, linsucks, crapple, and all of the other stupid little alterations to the names of companies and products see pretty silly to me. When people use those terms, I tend to assume that they are fanbois of one stripe or another, and, as I tend to ignore zealots, I generally ignore most of what these fanbois say. It has nothing to do with liking or disliking the same things, and everything to do with the appearance of being motivated by preexisting biases, rather than the reality of a situation.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[Voyager529]

And full-on developer tools for free. Not an incentive for 99% of the Mac userbase, but I find it really nice.

While granted that it's not quite their kitchen-sink professional bundles, Microsoft does offer Visual Studio Express, Web Developer Express, and SQL Server Express for free to any Windows user.

http://www.microsoft.com/express/

Just saying that first party dev tools aren't Mac exclusive.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[Ceseuron]

Not really sure where you're getting your facts from on what Dell preloads onto their computers, but I work for a small software developer as the senior sysadmin and we buy nothing but Dell machines. I've unboxed and setup about 20 Dell Dimension, Precision, OptiPlex, Vostro and XPS desktops and about a dozen Vostro and Latitude laptops so far and the only thing I've found on there is Google Desktop and Adobe Acrobat Reader for third party products. I've never unboxed a new Dell, server or workstation, that had Norton/Mcafee crap or any other trialware or crippleware for that matter.

Perhaps you're confusing Dell with Sony Vaio machines, which are preloaded with so much useless garbage (including SQL Server Express for Sony's own branded junkware to database with) that the machine barely has any horsepower left over to run Solitaire.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[FreonTrip]

Eek. My sleep deprivation's catching up to me again - even coffee didn't help me to see you were kidding today. Thanks for explaining your point of view!

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[socz]

I tend to assume that they are fanbois of one stripe or another,

I think you forgot that some people have a sense of humor?

I know some people think I come across as an ahole sometimes, but it's not so much that as that they don't understand what I'm really saying.

One comment said it best: 'When I first read your comment I laughed. Then I re-read it and wasn't sure if your were serious or what.'

And that is the best compliment ever! It's good to make you laugh, and better to make you really think about it!

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[mzs]

I will only address your concern about Apple's motivation: I could imagine Apple creating an app store for OSX and Windows where there are free and low priced apps where the apps need to be approved (like in the current app store) and there would be advertising in the apps if the dev so chose so that Apple would get a cut of all the purchases and the ads shown and the dev got the rest. I fear that the RDF could spin this as a pro rather than con for user as well.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[CohibaVancouver]

you do realize that selling ads to small markets makes no sense?

Depends on what you're selling and who you're selling to. If you're selling coca-cola, absolutely. However, many of the people in business-hub airports are a cherished segment - That's why, for example, you see ads in inflight magazines that you don't see anywhere else. For example, Barracuda Networks advertises extenively at airports.

http://www.darrenbarefoot.com/archives/2009/01/barracuda-networks-and-more-acts-of-advertising-faith.html

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Damn - then you come back and reply all civilly* and whatnot... what is slashdot coming to?

*poetic license #3122202

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[ohiovr]

I see you must have riled a couple Apple true believers. Good job!

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[dollarwizard]

Given that I only got free internet at an airport when Google felt generous last holiday season, I'd gladly use it and gladly watch ads.

Given that Google, which is everyone's favorite monopoly, controls 90+ percent of Internet advertising, I wonder why they don't offer free Internet everywhere they can. Does anyone know why not?

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[UnknowingFool]

As for Movie Maker and Photo Gallery, nothing really useful exists before Vista so people who have XP have very poor versions compared to the OS X counterparts. As for Backup and Restore, you can't with a straight face say that is better or more functional than Time Machine. Media Organizer. WMP? Seriously?

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[exomondo]

iAds is about allowing developers to give the option of paying for the app via watching ads

That's just a use for it, there are many other uses for iAds too.

It is not about the OS randomly bombarding users with ads.

Of course the marketing department would never spin it that way, but there is absolutely no reason whatsoever that this couldn't be the case - assuming of course that you know what iAds is.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[exomondo]

4. Apple's profit on phone sales is higher than many other vendors COMBINED

That's a very dubious statement.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[exomondo]

Apple had [url=http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2008/04/01/analyst-apples-us-consumer-market-share-now-21-percent/]21% share in 2008[/url]. Plus the increases that have been reported since equals to about 30%. It is some estimation on my part because the real numbers have not been released since 2008, unfortunately. Either way, it is significantly more than 8% in the consumer market.

There doesn't seem to be much actual info in that article and it only relates to the consumer market, which has been vaguely estimated without citation. It also assumes that no sales of apple computers were to enterprise. Better to look at more solid statistics that relate to the whole market.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[exomondo]

So from 2008 - estimated 21% of the US consumer market (which makes quite a few assumptions to even get that number) - until now you're saying they have experienced a ~50% growth in their marketshare? Or a 9% increase in US consumer marketshare? That doesn't sound likely.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[John Hasler]

> I have stopped watching TV, even though I pay for the service, instead
> deciding to watch videos via hulu or companies website.

In other words, you still watch tv.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[John Hasler]

> Cable was supposed to be ad-free.

Supposed by who? Certainly not by the people who invented it in the 1950s. It was merely supposed to bring you lots of stations, including ones you couldn't get decent signals from even with a tower and large antenna.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[mini me]

I welcome more accurate consumer market numbers. Like I said, Apple does not compete in the corporate space. To determine where Apple stands, you must look at the consumer market exclusively.

It is kind of like saying McDonalds has 8% of the apple pie market. While it might be true, I don't think you are going to head to McDonalds to pick up an apple pie for your next family gathering. That is not their market. It is not a meaningful metric to observe if you want to determine who sells the most homestyle pies.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[betterunixthanunix]

That is all great except for the part where you claim that iAds is going to help libre software developers. Why would a libre software developer want to incorporate a proprietary, anti-user-freedom advertising platform into their code?

Or did you think "free software" was a reference to the price?

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[betterunixthanunix]

How many of those grad students' Apple products were purchased with grant money (or otherwise supplied by their advisers)? My adviser sent an email out a few months back offering to buy us new computers of our choosing, up to a certain price which happened to be high enough for some of the lower end Apple products, and some of the students in our group opted for the Apple products (personally, I got a Dell "Precision" and discovered that, in fact, it kicks the pants off the Apple computers in the same price range).

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[mini me]

There is no "whole market." PCs (in the not-Mac sense) are used by completely different people than Macs. Sure, there is some overlap, but that does not mean that Apple computers overlap into all the markets other PC vendors enter.

For instance, in industry, I see a lot of PC systems controlling machinery. They are often HP or Dell systems, for example. You will never see a Mac here. It is the wrong tool for the job. And yet, those computers still are included in your "whole market" numbers. Why?

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[exomondo]

I welcome more accurate consumer market numbers. Like I said, Apple does not compete in the corporate space. To determine where Apple stands, you must look at the consumer market exclusively.

That's funny because i could have sworn that if you call this number (877) 412-7753, you'll get the Apple Enterprise Sales team and that you can visit their Business Solutions page on their website. They most certainly do compete in the enterprise market.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[rinoid]

There is NO dearth of 3rd party apps for OSX, not in the least.

+1 for @joeyblades for reminding us of the quality apps Apple provides. They really are a great ecosystem unmatched in quality.

I find this to be true with 3rd party apps as well. I use Win7 at home, dual booted for gaming. I wanted to work on a site in Win7 instead of rebooting into OSX. Even the little affordances in the user experience of OSX keep me scratching my head at WIn7, i.e., the ability to hover my pointer over any background window and scroll the contents, I can't do this in Win7.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[rinoid]

Just maybe if Microsoft hadn't spent the 90s truly being evil (opposed to the faux evil ppl lay on Apple these day just because they are afraid of some decent user experience), maybe then they wouldn't have any issues.

The 90s were rough if you tried to compete with Microsoft. They really did use their power to ill effect.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[Y-Crate]

I've heard OSX's video authoring is better than window's but I don't have first hand knowledge because most people I know either use something free or go full with Adobe Premier

Speaking as someone who has edited everything from home movies, indie shorts, commercial web promo vids to a professional feature film on Macs and PCs, I'll throw my 2 cents in and say OS X is simply a better platform.

The last company I worked for standardized on Avid PC workstations some years back, and the lead editor been regretting it ever since. Theoretically, you should have the same experience on either platform, but it doesn't work that way in a real production environment.

And as bizarre as it may be, I often find myself going Avid > Soundtrack Pro > Avid > Compressor > DVD Studio Pro.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[mR.bRiGhTsId3]

Because, free software isn't a reference to price and said freedom loving developer would like to get paid while still sharing his code with the masses. This is a great thing for free software. All of the code can be completely free and the developers can still get compensated for their time. Its identical to the way sourceforge hosts open source projects but is add supported. This way, its the developer getting compensated directly instead of having to rely on a 3rd party charity to host their code. Sure, enterprising users could patch out the adds, just as enterprising users can find open source software at places other than sourceforge, but most won't bother and thats a good thing.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[exomondo]

There is no "whole market."

Of course there is, the PC market.

Sure, there is some overlap, but that does not mean that Apple computers overlap into all the markets other PC vendors enter.

It isn't a case of Apple vs all the other PC vendors, not all vendors compete in all the different markets which is why we look at desktop pcs as a whole.

For instance, in industry, I see a lot of PC systems controlling machinery. They are often HP or Dell systems, for example.

So? You can't just use stats that compare the numbers for markets in which Apple is successful, particularly when they sell significantly to business and enterprise and those numbers are lumped into the 'consumer' category even though they don't belong there.

You will never see a Mac here. It is the wrong tool for the job.

Wrong! The Mac mini in particular is used quite extensively because of it's form-factor and unix-like OS. Don't presume to know such things about an industry if you aren't in that industry. They are also used extensively in the entertainment and education industries.

And yet, those computers still are included in your "whole market" numbers. Why?

They aren't my numbers. It's the PC statistics, Apple are no different from any other vendor.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[joeyblades]

Well, I may get dinged for responding to someone branded as a troll, but here goes...

So, either you ARE a troll or you are uninformed or you are working with a peculiar definition of the word paucity.

I use Mac, PC, and linux on a daily basis, so I think my opinion is fairly objective. I agree that there is a lot more software for the PC, but there IS still a lot of 3rd party software for Mac. More importantly, by-and-large, the Mac stuff tends to be higher quality. Here is what I observe (just my personal experience, your milage may vary):

• I load software onto my PC at a rate of about 3-to-1 over my Mac
• I delete more than 90% of the PC software that I load because it's crap
• I keep about 80% of the software that I load on my Mac

Consequently, when I tally it all up, my Mac has a lot more 3rd party software on it than my PC. Ironically, as I just perused my installed apps on my PC I noticed that quite a few are there to duplicate capabilities that are in-built on my Mac (perl, cygwin, vnc server, X-client, iTunes, Safari, QuickTime, WinZip, emacs editor, FreeCommander, a virtual desktop manager, etc.).

And what I wouldn't give for a Windows version of AppleScript, Automator, Taco HTML, or GeekTool...

Seriously, anyone who thinks that the Mac OS is somehow starving for good quality, 3rd party apps is simply out of touch.

BTW, back in 1984 when the Mac OS had MacPaint and MacWrite... Windows had what??? Oh yeah, there was no Windows yet. Windows Paint and Windows Write (super clever product names, BTW) didn't come out until almost 2 years later...

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[UnknowingFool]

While Shadow Copy covers the basic function of backup and restore that Time Machine can do, it has notable limitations which makes/made it less than suitable. The features of Backup and Restore are dependent on which version of Windows you have. Time Machine allows you to backup and restore individual files and any version of that file with a navigable UI. That UI doesn't exist for Windows

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[Nixoloco]

If your workflow consists of creating a photo album and consuming media, it's a very easy experience. For a professional developer, the workflow is acceptable but inferior to both Windows 7 (respectively the available applications) and Ubuntu. /rant

Just to say, I quite like OSX, but it does have usability issues if you're not a naive computer user. And your comment struck me as naive, no offense meant.

As someone who has worked in the IT industry and academia for fourteen years as unix and windows systems, network admin, software developer, and now researcher + phd student in information technology, I suppose I am still a little naive.
I like spaces more than other virtual desktop implementations, I have worked on in the past and there have been many. If you had the interest and took the time, you might discover that you can do many customizations to the way OSX behaves. There are many "hidden" preferences and everything is scriptable. That is if you are not a naive computer user I guess.
The combination of spaces and quicksilver (or launchbar), scripting, and the command line (BSD userland tools) is extremely powerful.
As for Compiz, it was OK when I last used it but not as stable as OSX's expose. I typically run Linux in VMs under OSX for development with it disabled or on the server through command line only so not sure how it has evolved.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[BrokenHalo]

All ads? What all the time?

Yes, pretty much.

I may be more unusual than I thought, but I spend comparatively little time shopping, so I don't need ads. And the fact that I use Google search doesn't preclude me blocking googleadservices in my hosts file. If I'm not buying anything, there's no point wasting bandwidth (mine or Google's).

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[Tom]

iAds is about allowing developers to give the option of paying for the app via watching ads.

It is about allowing developers to sell their users to ad companies instad of pleasing them with a good product so they're willing to pay for it.

At least say it how it is.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[Bert64]

And those people would also use the train or their car to go somewhere within their own country...
So the only time they would be in an airport is if they're travelling to a country further away than their near neighbors.

Besides, if you take the train you will still find yourself in a foreign train station waiting around which isn't much different from an airport really.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[the_Bionic_lemming]

Google has ads? //pats ad block

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[wbo]

Speaking as someone who has edited everything from home movies, indie shorts, commercial web promo vids to a professional feature film on Macs and PCs, I'll throw my 2 cents in and say OS X is simply a better platform.

Personally I feel just the opposite. I hate the way that most video applications on OS X are unable to handle elementary audio and video streams without first wrapping them in a Quicktime container and then having to constantly deal with color space expansion bugs in the Quicktime player (which as of OS X 10.6 are still unfixed). I have been able to automate much of my video production workflow through the use of AVISynth scripts running on Windows. For those of you who aren't familiar with AVISynth, it is a very powerful scripting language designed specifically for filtering, editing, and manipulating video streams. I have yet to find anything that comes anywhere close to the power and flexibility of AVISynth that runs on OS X and using AVISynth to do the heavy lifting has saved me tons of time over the years.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[mdwh2]

Yes, this is no one ever criticises Windows, ever. (Or for a more specific example to this story, no one ever criticised Opera for having ads in the free version, even though that was years ago.)

Wait.

Of course, it's fair game to criticise a product, even if you've also decided not to buy it. How are people to know not to buy it, if we don't publicise the bad with the good? People do it here all the time. Why are Apple any different? And we get three stories a day on advertising everything Apple do (or are rumoured too), so they can't complain when there's negative publicity too.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[valduboisvert]

I never found enough quality in Apple products to actually buy one. I am not saying their products got unnoticed by me. But I never buy something without doing some research first. And with Apple every single time I was tempted to buy and did my research I found that I can buy better quality for less money from some other place. I guess Apple story has lot more to do with snobbism and fashion than pragmatism. So if people like to buy Apple I am ok with it. And if people criticise Apple I bet this is useful for Apple itself as well. So let it be.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[jvkjvk]

this kind of talk is nonsense and whatever else you said sounded like the other end of a phone call in a Charlie Brown cartoon.

Right, way to go.

Ignore any actual content of the post because you don't like the words he used.

In the PP at the worst those "bad words" simply makes his bias clear. Otherwise it was quite good post.

I have to wonder how much information you miss out on because of your wacked out filters.

Regards.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[quadelirus]

Don't know, but that is somewhat irrelevant. The main point is that I see plenty of tech geeks buying Macs, so I think the argument that Macs are only for "not-hugely-geeky tech men" doesn't have basis in fact.

I had to price a dell tower vs. a mac pro (fairly well spec'd out, not the bottom of the line) about two years ago and for the same hardware the dell was $2000 more than the Mac, though it did have an extra year of warranty--so it can go either way depending on what you are buying.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[Achromatic1978]

If your XP machine died, restoring your files on your new win 7 machine from backup is a PAIN. While migrating from one OSX to another was great./blockquote>

LMAO. Nice comparison. XP came out at about the same time as OS 9.

I'd love to see how you migrate/restore your MacOS 9 system to Snow Leopard, and if it's still 'great' and not a 'pain'.

iTunes is better than WMP from an organizational standpoint (though it is available for windows).

iTunes, especially on Windows, is an atrocity.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[putch]

right. the business traveler w/ an expense account is a prime demo. but they dont use kiosks. they have laptops with aircards and vpns.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[jedidiah]

Spaces requires you to go some place else and then return rather than just integrating into the desktop.

It looks and feels like something that was bolted on after the fact.

Sure, it's better than the Windows attempts at aping this part of X. It's still not quite as good.

Spaces looks like virtual workspaces designed by someone that doesn't actually USE them but sought to make the experience look pretty.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[Nyder]

Pretty much. Nobody is forcing you people to use a Mac. If you don't like Apple products, don't use them. There's no need for OS crusades and spreading FUD.

Actually I find it entertaining about how some of you are so quick to defend it and cry foul.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[Golias]

Which would be simply awful if anybody was forcing you to pay for cable.

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[rinoid]

No it is not. The statement is based on factual, financial reports and a bit of analysis.
http://www.intomobile.com/2010/07/22/apple-iphone-has-totally-dominated-the-smartphone-market/

It's also true of their computer sales:
http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-revenue-vs-operating-profit-share-of-top-pc-vendors-2010-3

Re:Interesting Spin in the Summary

[exomondo]

No it is not. The statement is based on factual, financial reports and a bit of analysis.

Of course it is, and it's obvious - unless of course you fail to understand the meaning of the word 'dubious' - in the use of the word 'many', that is totally unspecific.

iAds for iTunes Store/Apple TV iOS?

[codeonezero]

I don't think this would be something implemented system wide, more than likely it could be iAds framework that developers could use when releasing free Mac Apps. Apple spends considerable time looking into user experience so something that would drive people away in droves is not likely to make it into OS X. Could also be a misleading patent that's really for iOS for Apple TV (which makes more sense to me). Something like free Movie/Music/Otherwise Paid content delivered via iTunes on Apple TV with need to watch the ads in order to keep viewing it, or pay up to download and have full access to that content. The same concept could apply to iTunes Store on Mac OS X.

Re:iAds for iTunes Store/Apple TV iOS?

[sixsixtysix]

pay up to download and have full access to that content.

how can you have full access to drmed content?

WTF...

[NRP128]

Wow. Way to spread the FUD.

Re:WTF...

[EraserMouseMan]

Wow, the logical next step for these annoyed Mac users will be for them to ditch OSX and switch to Open Source Linux?

Re:WTF...

[Duradin]

Seems to be that someone is still a little bitter about how that Nomad comparison turned out.

Re:WTF...

[H0p313ss]

Wow. Way to spread the FUD.

FUD?

T H I S ! I S ! S L A S H D O T !

Disclaimer: I'm sure you've gathered that this post is humor, however the filter thinks there are too many upper case letters above...

i!

[mark72005]

It's magical, amazing, innovative, revolutionary! Sign me up! Glittering iGeneralities make me swoon!

Re:i!

[cHiphead]

Anyone else read that as Forced Aids coming to OS X?

Re:i!

[Yvan256]

Everybody should have aides.

"push more people to open source?"

[Vinegar Joe]

Are you kidding? Apple users would take about 3 minutes to reboot their brains and then be all over the internet proclaiming how insanely brilliant this move would be. How the ads were fantastic and innovative proving (once again!) how far ahead of everyone else Steve Jobs is......and anyone who disagrees is just an Apple-hater.

Re:"push more people to open source?"

[imakemusic]

Oh give it a rest. Not all Apple users are fanboy idiots. I've got a Macbook Pro because it's a good bit of hardware and it suits my needs. I've also got an HTC mobile because an iPhone doesn't. I don't like the sound of this ad system any more than you do though I have a feeling it's not as bad as the SlashFUD makes it appear.

Re:"push more people to open source?"

[mkiwi]

Honestly, especially on slashdot, I've noticed that there are a lot of anti-Apple people--more so than the pro Apple people. For every time I see a pro-Apple post here on slashdot I see at least 4-5 negative posts about evil Apple is. Then the people (like you) qualify their post by saying, "anybody who disagrees is just and Apple-hater," are essentially writing off your own bad behavior by deflecting blame on to a minority of apple zealots.

This is absolutely ridiculous and shows just how much slashdot has deteriorated over the years. I can understand if someone has a logical argument, lists valid points, and contributes to the discussion... but posts like yours do nothing to contribute to slashdot other than to have a big circle jerk with all the other Apple haters.

</end rant>

If its in the OS kernel you're stuffed otherwise..

[Viol8]

... its probably nothing that kill -9 couldn't solve.

I suspect it'll be some background daemon that kicks off some process every now and then and disables
some portion of the GUI while its at it.

Re:Interesting

[mark72005]

So... Apple is disabling functionality until you view a forced ad... but they are doing it because they love us!

Prior art

[clone53421]

My DVD player disables certain functions while it is playing advertisements.

Re:Prior art

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget Microsoft IE4's "desktop enhancements" from back in 1997 that just stuck glorified little ads, promoted as a "hot bar" or something like that. The Channel screen saver qualifies as well. IE 5.5 and later dropped that.

Silly boy. You forgot the First Rule of Apple Desktop Computing: "It's annoyance when Microsoft does it, innovation when Apple follows."

Re:Prior art

[kent_eh]

So does mine. And I hate it every time.
I have ripped and re-burned my most regularly watched movies simply to not be forced to repeatedly sit through the advertising for years old "coming attractions" and the Interpol warning.

I own the disk. I own the player. I get to be in control of how I watch it.

Re:Prior art

[gstoddart]

My DVD player disables certain functions while it is playing advertisements.

Of course, the annoying thing about that is that advertising and previews wasn't why the DVD player has mandatory "no-skip" sections -- it was for the copyright notice.

Then a bunch of marketing weenies at Disney and others decided to make all of the previews and crap as mandatory as well.

I hope there's a special place in hell reserved for people who put mandatory ads into DVDs and other things. I'm pretty sure that if I bought a machine that locked me out until I watched an ad, I'd be taking it back to the store for a refund.

If I bought the machine, unless you gave me a discount on it or are paying me to watch ads, I'm not part of your advertising revenue.

Re:Prior art

[cpotoso]

Which is why every single DVD gets ripped ("movie only") to a HD and watched from there (PLEX on a mac mini connected to 40" LCD, neat!)

Re:Prior art

[linebackn]

Don't forget Microsoft IE4's "desktop enhancements" from back in 1997 that just stuck glorified little ads, promoted as a "hot bar" or something like that. The Channel screen saver qualifies as well. IE 5.5 and later dropped

Arrag, and all these years I was trying to erase that from my memory. The real purpose of the channel bar and channel screen saver was to promote Microsoft Internet Explorer 4. With the "enhanced" desktop IE 4 logos were also plastered all over other places in the user interface and used the IE document viewer shell in place of the previous Windows Explorer file manager.

They didn't prevent you from using the OS if you didn't view the channel bar ads (they DID try to prevent you from using the OS if IE was not installed) but the average person probably never turned off the channel bar or active desktop. So those graphics for MSN, MSNBC, Disney, etc probably burned themselves in to many CRTs.

Even today browser vendors take money for prominently placing default browser bookmarks, but at least those aren't usually as intrusive.

Re:Prior art

[imakemusic]

Spotify kind of does the opposite of that - if you mute the sound output or turn it below a certain level (in the software, obviously it can't detect if you turn your external speakers down) it pauses the advert (at least it does on my macbook, I've not tried it on my PC yet).

Re:Prior art

[Dashiva Dan]

And this is why I prefer to watch pirated video streamed off the net of DVDs I own over the DVDs themselves.
Then again, I don't own a HDTV, so I'm not losing picture quality.
I also recently signed up to netflix, as it streams (older seasons) of TV shows at full quality, without any annoying forced ads/previews. (Even watching TV shows on that I own seasons of on DVD for the same reason) I just wish they had the latest released seasons, and even current TV.
I don't mind watching ads for stuff I get free (I haven't clicked the 'Disable Advertising' checkbox that slashdot has been offering me for the last few months due to somethingorother, as /. is free (I don't subscribe) so I don't spit them their ads, but when I pay for something... thats a whole other story.
I do understand that pricing is sometimes subsidised by advertising, so you pay less than you would for something with a little advertising, but that just irritates me. If I'm going to pay for it I'll pay full price for no ads/DRM/whatever, thankyouverymuch.

Re:Prior art

[Infonaut]

So true. I, for one, am SICK AND TIRED OF APPLE'S ADS BOMBARDING ME EVERY DAY I USE MY MAC!!!! When, when will it stop?!

Here's an idea: Bash Apple *after* they actually implement something you hate. It's so much easier to muster evidence that way.

Silly boy. You forgot the First Rule of Apple Desktop Computing: "It's annoyance when Microsoft does it, innovation when Apple follows."

Re:Prior art

[Infonaut]

There should be a "prior art" button in the Slashdot interface.

Re:Prior art

[ndavis]

That is still better then the new Blu-ray disks that download an ad from the net when you put the disk in. I didn't give the company the right to use my internet connection to download an ad that they force me to watch when I purchased a disk from the store. If my connection was metered I would send them a bill for what I think the download cost on my end.

Re:Prior art

[gstoddart]

That is still better then the new Blu-ray disks that download an ad from the net when you put the disk in. I didn't give the company the right to use my internet connection to download an ad that they force me to watch when I purchased a disk from the store. If my connection was metered I would send them a bill for what I think the download cost on my end.

That's news to me since I'm skipping Blu Ray altogether since it's just going to be an intermediate thing until they re-write the HD specs again. We're now on at least the 3rd iteration since I've been keeping track.

So, can you disconnect it from the network? Or is it mandatory that it be connected for some evil DRM purposes? If you need to have your DVD player connected to the internet, all the more reason to not buy a Blu Ray.

What, exactly, is the network connection used for?

I agree with you, I would not accept a DVD player downloading anything off the internet. It's none of their business how often I watch a movie, and forced advertising deserves a boot to the head.

Re:Prior art

[ndavis]

I'm using a PS3 that goes through Wifi I'm guessing the disk would work fine if I was not connected but I was shocked that a message came up saying downloading a trailer. I could disconnect it but that is a pain.

Re:Prior art

[tepples]

advertising and previews wasn't why the DVD player has mandatory "no-skip" sections -- it was for the copyright notice.

If this were true, then the DVD standard should have specified a limit of 15 seconds of no-skip per disc.

Re:Prior art

[gstoddart]

If this were true, then the DVD standard should have specified a limit of 15 seconds of no-skip per disc.

True, or not, it has always been explained as being for the FBI warning. See here.

Once it was in the spec, marketing idiots were then free to do even more annoying things with it.

Re:Prior art

[sixsixtysix]

there are plenty of non-networked blu-ray palyers, so...

Re:Prior art

[Ceseuron]

There is definitely a place in hell reserved for those who foist mandatory, intrusive advertising on others. It's a place where they'll get to implement any kind of forced-viewing advertisement they want...but there won't ever be any audience to watch it.

Re:Prior art

[pandrijeczko]

But why then do people buy Apple computers? I always thought it was because they were supposed to be totally usable by non-technical people - in which case the kind of solution you describe above would be beyond the technical ability of most of them.

Re:Prior art

[pandrijeczko]

But clever marketing people know damn well that placating your children who are demanding to see the latest "Finding Nemo" sequel is far more important to you than getting annoyed at not being able to skip past advertising trailers...

Re:Prior art

[gstoddart]

But clever marketing people know damn well that placating your children who are demanding to see the latest "Finding Nemo" sequel is far more important to you than getting annoyed at not being able to skip past advertising trailers...

Skipping the whole "kids" thing for exactly that reason. Not interested.

I'm far more annoyed about the advertising. Trust me.

Re:Prior art

[tehcyder]

So true. I, for one, am SICK AND TIRED OF APPLE'S ADS BOMBARDING ME EVERY DAY I USE MY MAC!!!! When, when will it stop?!

God, it must be like reading slashdot ALL THE TIME YOU USE YOUR COMPUTER.

Apple-this, SteveJobs-that, i-theother.

Re:Prior art

[Just Some Guy]

I hope there's a special place in hell reserved for people who put mandatory ads into DVDs and other things.

I hope there's a special place in hell for people who crap up the viewing experience, then say they wish they could sue you for ripping your own DVDs so you can watch them more comfortably.

An Apple exclusive?

[Drakkenmensch]

Wait a minute - if Apple has the patent on in-OS advertizing, does this mean that Microsoft will be unable to follow suit because Steve Jobs has ensured no one else but him gets to do it?

Re:An Apple exclusive?

[VGPowerlord]

Wait a minute - if Apple has the patent on in-OS advertizing, does this mean that Google will be unable to follow suit because Steve Jobs has ensured no one else but him gets to do it?

FTFY

Re:An Apple exclusive?

[gstoddart]

Wait a minute - if Apple has the patent on in-OS advertizing, does this mean that Microsoft will be unable to follow suit because Steve Jobs has ensured no one else but him gets to do it?

Sadly, it would likely mean that Apple would gladly license people to use their patent so they get paid no matter who is watching an ad.

Companies like revenue streams.

Re:An Apple exclusive?

[mqduck]

That's a good point. As a non-Apple user, I'd be quite happy to let Apple corner the ad-supported OS market.

Re:An Apple exclusive?

[Drakkenmensch]

That's assuming that Apple would be happy of being given a thin slice of the windows-based profit pie while Microsoft pockets the lion's share. Blocking out Microsoft may deny themselves than thin slice, but would also deny them the majority share of that lost revenue... something Apple execs may decide is worthwhile just to stick it to their competition!

Re:An Apple exclusive?

[mzs]

What if Apple intended to create an app store for OSX and Windows were devs could add iAds and get a cut? That prospect scares me.

Re:Interesting

[Culture20]

I wouldn't see this as a bad thing. It lets Apple improve their OS. If you have played World of Warcraft, you know Blizzard uses the subscription income to constantly create new content and features. Besides, who can't take a 30 second break from computer every once in a while? Knowing Apple, the ads will be good and interesting to the viewer. This is really a non-issue. You will get to see interesting software or services (most likely tailored for you) and Apple can keep developing their OS. Sign me up!

You sir or madam, are an expert with comedy.

Viruis hook. Hit [Install] to continue

[RichMan]

I can see that being exploited.

Advertising feeds are not generally considered high security. With a stop your OS type interrupt they are going to have to become very secure.

Steve?

[ground.zero.612]

I think the other CEO Steve would happily sell you an OS without adware pre-installed. He usually leaves that up to the OEM or the stupid end-user!

I doubt in the OS itself, but I could see it in...

[Supp0rtLinux]

I doubt Apple would do forced ads in OS X itself... but I could see iWork and iLife being free, albeit ad supported and perhaps other apps like Aperture or Logic Studio... sort of free with ads or pay for the full version. I could see the same thing in their movie trailers...

Target audience

[MonsterTrimble]

OSX & iOS users are not it. Frankly, pushed ads on those platforms would be suicidal - remember that Opera STILL has the millstone of ads around it's neck years after they went away. (Aside: I prefer Opera to every other browser - I still think it's faster then Chrome to boot). I think there is no way it would happen on their core cash cow machines.

That being said, as another poster put it above, TV & Video is where the next market is, and that's where these will come into play. That's why there's the fights over Flash & H264. I would put some good money on Apple building a 'custom' TV package for everyone. It would run under the iTunes banner and would basically be you pony up X dollars a month and get unlimited streaming video and audio. Meanwhile there will be ads before movies and TV shows begin, which have been targetted to you based on your show and movie preferences. Welcome to the world of "iTV: TV for me".

Re:Target audience

[Iburnaga]

Funny that, originally paying for tv got you ad free tv. Why should people pay a monthly fee if the company will just milk them some more with time wasting and often annoying ads?

Re:Target audience

[Nerdfest]

Interesting idea, but if it runs under iTunes, it certainly ain't TV for me.

Re:Target audience

[dogzilla]

I suspect you're right. If you look at Apple's iTunes platform, it has the makings of a real ip-based network. Streaming media in its current state (Hulu, NetFlix) represent the sort of market that Apple has proven they can go into and dominate; established revenue potential with weak existing players and inhouse technology to offer an unmatchable user experience. It could also explain Apple's North Carolina datacenter that's about to go live, and dovetails with rumors of a new AppleTV product.

Re:Target audience

[ps_inkling]

I still thought Opera had advertising in the interface, and had actively avoided using it. After your comment, I read their 1Q report -- apparently they're working on back ends to compress web data to send to their Opera mobile browsers (less bandwidth), along with a Google partnership for the desktop search (and other ventures).

I wondered how long it would take for streaming movies to get ads embedded within, or around the display frame. Combine this innovation with the picture recognition advertising technology, and preference targeting, and I'm afraid the synergy of the underlying revenue stream would be insurmountable.

Would Dish Network or DirecTV have prior art on some aspect of this? They both currently have integrated ads within the program guide. Or the TVGuide channel, with the incessant video ad at the top? Did someone think to include an ad frame on the new TVs that connect to the internet and show videos and web pages? How about Microsoft's and Dish Network's WebTV? Video games with a "pay to continue" timer?

Re:Target audience

[MonsterTrimble]

Nope - Opera hasn't had ads since 6 or 7. I think their desktop product (other than Opera mail which I disliked immensely) is very good, and certainly better than IE, Firefox & Chrome. I haven't tried Safari so I won't comment on that.

Re:Target audience

[LaRainette]

You totally forgot one thing : it's APPLE.

I mean when they make a phone that drops call when you hold it people defend them.
When they make a "smartphone" in 2007 without 3G everyone says : GENIUS it uses less battery... Yeah and it goes 5 times slower doesn't that count ? NO it's Genius !

When they make it so that nobody can develop an application FOR ITS OWN PHONE without their consent everybody cries GENIUS GENIUS GENIUS !

Bottom line : they can do whatever they want, even a 1 minutes use of your MAC, one minute of advertising, I guarantee you people will buy it.
Because thousands of "journalists" and "tech bloggers" will find a way to sell it.

Free OS ad supported

[Orga]

Not sure how it'd hurt apple to offer a free version of their operating system that is ad supported. I bet schools would even jump on this to start saving some money. Hell maybe Apple would cut them in on some fo the revenue for advertising to their captive teen audience.

Re:Free OS ad supported

[lockwesmonster]

I was thinking along the same lines. iAds could greatly reduce the cost of Apple products. I imagine that Apple would still have their Ad-Free OS installed on computers selling for the same as the current prices. However, if someone chose to get the iAds pre-installed versions, the costs would be steeply discounted. I don't see how this is different from a cheap Dell shipping with a bunch of bloat-ware.

Re:Free OS ad supported

[guruevi]

Oh yes, because I would much rather view forced ads every so often than pay the $5 per machine it costs to volume license Snow Leopard. Even if you're only buying one, it's only $29 for an upgrade or $169 for Leopard, iWork and iLife or $229 for 5.

Re:Free OS ad supported

[betterunixthanunix]

I bet schools would even jump on this to start saving some money

1. I hope they don't; the last thing we need is for children and teenagers to be exposed to even more advertising. Things are bad enough as is, we really need to be removing advertisements from schools instead of inviting even more in.
2. When have schools flocked to free (beer) software? It is rare to see schools using no cost operating systems, despite their wide availability. If schools migrated to an ad-supported Mac OS X, it would be because someone from Apple came to a school board meeting and gave a 4 hour presentation about how great it is for the school district to rely on Apple for software.

Re:Free OS ad supported

[rjstanford]

Not sure how it'd hurt apple to offer a free version of their operating system that is ad supported. I bet schools would even jump on this to start saving some money. Hell maybe Apple would cut them in on some fo the revenue for advertising to their captive teen audience.

It would hurt Apple in the same way that it would hurt Mercedes to offer a cheaper car with in-dash advertising. Apple is not going after the low-cost market, they're going after the quality-integrated market; minor cost-savings don't help them do that.

Re:Free OS ad supported

[rjstanford]

I was thinking along the same lines. iAds could greatly reduce the cost of Apple products. I imagine that Apple would still have their Ad-Free OS installed on computers selling for the same as the current prices. However, if someone chose to get the iAds pre-installed versions, the costs would be steeply discounted. I don't see how this is different from a cheap Dell shipping with a bunch of bloat-ware.

Exactly. And Apple is one of the fastest growing computer vendors right now because of the impression that they are, in fact, very different from a cheap Dell shipping with a bunch of bloatware. Why would they jeopardize that?

Re:Free OS ad supported

[Zironic]

I suspect the parents would jump on the school like ravenous sharks the second they accepted advertising inside the school.

Ad-Supported Version?

[Tea-Bone of Brooklyn]

I could imagine having the normal version of OS-X that you buy, and a "free" ad-supported version. Maybe even one that runs (legally) on non-apple hardware. It would be a great way to entice Windows users to try it out - and buy the full version if they like it.

Re:If its in the OS kernel you're stuffed otherwis

[Issarlk]

...implying you'll still have root privileges on ad-OSes.

Re:Interesting

[Nerdfest]

So that's why I keep hearing "The Imperial March" in my head when I read stories about Apple these days. They know I love music!

Force aIds?

[masmullin]

oh iAds... a dyslexic moment lead me to believe it was forced aids! forced aids would suck..

FUD

[drumcat]

I've been seeing this garbage since Windows 95 SP2 was going to push ads to Active Desktop. Recycled news sucks.

To see this comment you must view a series of ads!

[linebackn]

To read this funny and insightful comment you must be signed in or view a series of advertisements:

- Click here to sign up for a premium account now (9.95 a month)!

- Click here for some other confusing options!

- Click here to view a long series of advertisements first in a useless attempt to see the comment.

- Click here to go back to Google and find some other site that has the same damn thing for free

Pot, Kettle

[diamondsw]

Interesting how people are quick to jump on Apple for this, when Android and Chrome are created by an advertising company.

Re:Pot, Kettle

[Nerdfest]

... that advertising company has gone out of its way so that you are *not* locked into their services. The work required to dump Apple, especially if you're computer+phone+medial player is quite a lot.

Re:Pot, Kettle

[farble1670]

Interesting how people are quick to jump on Apple for this, when Android and Chrome are created by an advertising company.

neither android or chrome forces advertisements on the user. even the google apps in android are ad-less. even google search on android is ad-less.

Re:Pot, Kettle

[liquidsin]

can you give me some examples? when i lost my ipod, i had no troubles switching to using my blackberry as a media player. i've moved firefox profiles and photoshop/illustrator files (with all supporting fonts, images, etc) from my macbook to a windows machine and opened them with no issues. i just haven't seen this alleged vendor lock-in that i keep hearing so much about, and i have to wonder what i'm missing.

Re:Pot, Kettle

[Dashiva Dan]

The difference between Google and Apple is that Google appears to care more about us and less about their bottom line than Apple does.
Sure, it could be spin-doctoring, but looking at where and how Google spends it's money as compared to Apple, and looking at the effort Apple puts into marketing as compared to Google, I'm thinking the picture is fairly clear to most of us.
Besides. Google is an advertising company, yet it consistantly expands our freedom/access. Apple is not an advertising company, yet consistantly limits/binds it's customers...

This is a far cry from a pot/kettle metaphor.

Re:Pot, Kettle

[Nocturnal Deviant]

let me fix his post for you. that advertising company has gone out of its way so that you are *not* viewing horrifyingly bright and loud flash ad's while browsing, as well as offering a myriad of free services, and supporting OSS software, which has taken a bite out of M$'s share. he was talking about google to any other platform...not windows to mac(lols as if.) or mac to windows(easy.)

Re:Pot, Kettle

[Imazalil]

I don't disagree with you fully, but part of what makes Google look good is that they get to play good cop while the phone manufacturer and carrier get to play bad cop - ie. It's not our fault Samsung and Verizon (just picking names out of a hat) decided to put in ad overlays every five minutes, we just made the OS.

Google is great at expanding our consumption of free information. They do a super job at search (and related services) but most of the items that they expand your access to are already there for free, just waiting to be accessed. In a way, I think Apple has been tackling much harder issues, getting 99 cent pricing on all/most songs from the Recording Industry, and then offering DRM free versions took a whole lot of skill. It's all taken for granted now, but getting that stuff off the ground was tough.

I'm not trying to gloss over the fact that search is very very hard, nor that Apple has made some highly suspect choices/decisions. Just random observations badly typed out before my morning coffee.

I should also say that being an advertising company does not mean anything, good or bad, it's just a company like any other.

Re:Pot, Kettle

[liquidsin]

no, he claims that google has gone out of their way not to lock you in to their services, then claims that leaving apple's devices/services is somehow difficult. or at least that's what the claim looks like when i read it.

and to your points, seems like apple has maybe done something towards killing flash ads while browsing on their mobile products, and have also done quite a bit to support OSS.

Re:Pot, Kettle

[DaVince21]

Do they force an ad down your throat when you're trying to access some of the OS's core functionality? If not, this isn't comparable.

Billionaire game: Abuse others

[Anonymous Coward]

Steve Jobs' cancer is in remission. He interprets that at evidence he hasn't abused you enough.

Shareware Alternatives

[binaryspiral]

I actually like this idea. It's an alternative for small application developers to make money on their hard work.

Same goes for the iPhone iADs - it's not going to pop up ads in mail or calendar - it simply provides an API for developers to write in ad serving space on their free applications. This is an alternative to actually charging people money for the software.

Way to incite a flamewar and bring out the fan boys...

Re:Shareware Alternatives

[BitZtream]

Except your completely ignore what happens everywhere else as if this is unique and different.

What happens is they give you ads AND charge you for the software after everyone starts doing it.

Ever used cable TV? Guess how that started out ...

Re:Shareware Alternatives

[Tom]

I actually like this idea. It's an alternative for small application developers to make money on their hard work.

If your stuff isn't worth someone paying $5 for it, then it isn't worth it. Getting someone else (the ad company) to pay that money instead is a scam, pure and simple. Instead of pleasing your customer, you are selling your customer. Does that change in attitude make for better applications? I very much doubt it. Sooner than you think, you're going to build the app around the ads, not around user satisfaction.

Apple TV

[whisper_jeff]

I could see this being a big part of a new, updated Apple TV. Ad drive OS to dramatically reduce the cost of the set-top box to a price point where consumers won't mind paying for it (compared to the free set top box they probably get from their cable provider). Now, while watching tv, the viewer is "forced" to watch ads served up by Apple. Not that much different from the current situation but now with the added functionality that Apple will provide.

For non-Apple hardware?

[benmcollins13]

Maybe this is a way to subsidize MacOS X on non-Apple hardware? Like download a MacOS X 10.6 for Dell, and you get the crappy forced Ads.

Re:For non-Apple hardware?

[Duradin]

If Apple wanted OS X on non-Apple hardware they'd be selling it for non-Apple hardware at a pricepoint of their choosing.

Why Apple would want to run OS X on $DIETY knows what hardware configurations and get all the hassle that MS has on top of not selling their hardware is beyond me.

Re:For non-Apple hardware?

[betterunixthanunix]

If Apple wanted to subsidize Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware, they would just release a version that runs on non-Apple hardware and charge more for it.

That issue has nothing to do with money, it has to do with marketing -- they have worked very hard for people to make a distinction between Macintosh and every other PC out there, and ensuring that their software only runs on Macintosh computers is part of that effort.

Re:For non-Apple hardware?

[Dashiva Dan]

I think that if Apple released any version of their OS for other hardware, hackers would use it as a tool to get the official Mac OS to work on other hardware, then there'd be comparisons on how cheap hardware performs as compared to Mac hardware, and suddenly Mac would be looking even more overpriced than it already is... and I don't see Apple taking that risk.

Short answer: no

[damn_registrars]

I wonder if this would push more people to open source alternatives

Ads will not on their own push people to alternatives. You need two things before Joe User will switch:

• They need to know there are alternatives
• They need to be able to run their applications on them, in exactly the same way they already run those applications

Until then it doesn't matter. If OS X delivered electric shocks to its users at random intervals, they still wouldn't switch to something else if they didn't know there was a something else, or if they couldn't run their applications on that something else in exactly the same way they run it on OS X (and ditto for Windows).

In other words, in case you didn't get the memo, emulation options are not good enough for most users. As an example, most users would try Wine once (at most) and then never want to use it again because it isn't exactly the same as what they are used to.

Re:Short answer: no

[betterunixthanunix]

They need to know there are alternatives

Every Mac OS X user on this planet knows that there is an alternative -- Apple's entire marketing strategy is based on conveying the idea that the choice is between Windows and Mac OS X. Now, whether those user are aware of the dozens of other alternatives out there is another story.

They need to be able to run their applications on them, in exactly the same way they already run those applications

Not in my experience. I have seen people with no technical expertise at all switch from Windows to Fedora (GNOME) and have little difficulty after the first day or so.

The real impediment to people switching away from Apple's products is the amount of effort Apple has put into their marketing campaign. People are convinced that Apple's desktops and laptops are in a completely different category from every other company's desktops and laptops, and that Mac OS X is the greatest operating system in the entire world (never mind that PC-BSD is considered the easiest operating system to learn how to use, and that Mac OS X is routinely cracked faster than its competitors at pwn2own). People are willing to pay a substantial premium for Apple's computers and software, and that adds to their belief that they are getting something better than anything else out there.

Apple's customers also do not care about the issues that gave rise to the GPL -- just look at iPhone and iPad sales. Telling an Apple customer that switching to a libre operating system will free them from Apple's tactics is pointless, since they do not perceive Apple's tactics as a problem. All they see is software that they are convinced is better than everything else, and someone who is telling them that they should switch to be free of a problem they don't think they have.

Re:Short answer: no

[gutnor]

"They need to know there are alternatives"

Not that I disagree with you on a general basis, but let's keep stuff in context: we are talking about Mac here ... Do you really think there are many MacBook or iMac users that does not know there are "Windows computer" they could use instead? Even for the iPhone, how many iPhone user is not fully aware they could get a wider choice of smartphone from ... well basically every carrier in every country.

They need to be able to run their applications on them, in exactly the same way they already run those applications

Again, talking about Mac users - generally they have problem running stuff on their shinny Mac, not the other way around. The daily life of a Mac user is finding "Mac alternative" for stuff all their friend talk about or that they see advertised or that they use at work. (a few years ago when IE was the one browser they even needed to find alternative for bloody websites ... ) No criticizing Apple product or anything, but Apple is in the same boat as Linux: you don't get a Mac or a Linux desktop by chance !

Re:Short answer: no

[dkleinsc]

They need to know there are alternatives

I seem to remember some company in Redmond coming out with a pretty popular operating system for PCs, and another company that specializes in online search but also has created a fairly popular phone OS. So while there aren't many well-known open-source alternatives, there certainly are alternatives to OS X.

They need to be able to run their applications on them, in exactly the same way they already run those applications

Sorta. They need to be able to get their work done quickly and efficiently and right now. If you give 'em something that looks and feels similar and does similar things but is better in some way (cheaper, faster, etc), people can and do switch.

Re:Short answer: no

[mqduck]

in case you didn't get the memo, emulation options are not good enough for most users. As an example, most users would try Wine once

Wine Is Not an Emulator.

and then never want to use it again because it isn't exactly the same as what they are used to.

Yes, nobody who would go through the trouble of giving Wine a try would be willing to spend any time whatsoever seeing if they could learn to use it.

Re:Short answer: no

[pandrijeczko]

As an example, most users would try Wine once (at most) and then never want to use it again because it isn't exactly the same as what they are used to.

What in God's name are you *BLABBERING* on about, man? Do you actually know what WINE *IS*???

The *WHOLE PURPOSE* of WINE is to make Linux *MORE COMFORTABLE* to people who like certain games & apps on Windows by letting them run them on Linux.

Where do you get this idea that "most users would try Wine once"? There's a perfectly good WINE Application Database that pretty much tells you the chances of getting your app or game running in the first place, and how to set it up.

Why do you fanbois *CONSTANTLY* make these sweeping statements that have no substance in fact & just glaringly indicate how little you actually *KNOW* about the subject in the first place?

Please... go and be happy with your easy-to-use Apple computers but don't then pretend that being an Apple user makes you some kind of all-knowing computer authority because it clearly does not.

Re:Short answer: no

[LodCrappo]

You're destined for the troll box, but I think there is truth behind your words, you just presented it in a confrontational way.

I don't think Apple's products are deliberately set at a premium to limit sales to a small number of people. I think they are deliberately set at a premium to make money, nothing more. It is amusing to see Apple fans yammering on about how profitable Apple is... as if they don't realize where those profits came from? "Hey I gave a bunch of my money to this company! They have a *ton* of money!" How that becomes a point of personal pride, I'm not sure.

Anyway, it's pretty clear that Apple gets more money from it's customers than their competitors do, and they've pulled this off for quite a long time. This is something that takes skill, and it's one of the few things I respect about the company. They really have mastered the "experience" sell. From the marketing campaigns to the highly trained employees in carefully planned retail stores, Apple makes people feel special for doing something very ordinary, and turns that feeling into profit.

You're right on target about the "elitist club" mentality that is apparent from many owners. Pretty silly considering this sense of "I'm different" comes from buying a device sold by the millions and available at Walmart, but this makes it all the more impressive that Apple can pull it off.

I think you are also correct in the general sense that in many cases, people would not want the same product (at least not at the same price) if it didn't have the Apple logo on it. It's not about the logo, it's about the "experience", which is really what Apple is selling. The hardware is secondary, so long as Apple doesn't screw it up so badly that it interferes with the "experience". They've refined this sales method to the point where most other companies look cheesy if they even try to compete for that effect.

Personally, I think it's the modern day equivalent of snake oil, but I'm sure snake oil satisfied some portion of those who bought it. The snake oil salesmen probably made more profits than those who just sold medicine as medicine too.

Well.. I'll probably be joining you in troll land soon enough :)

Re:Short answer: no

[pandrijeczko]

I get confrontational about it because I really would like people to be honest & open about why they do things.

If you read and contribute on Slashdot as much as I do, you'll find Apple users harping on about how wonderful OS X is because it's based on a BSD UNIX core - yet most of them wouldn't know a shell prompt or how to edit in vi if it hit them in the face.

Many of them also seem to have this belief that stepping away from mainstream PCs to Apple makes them some kind of technical authority on computers - yet some of the sweeping generalisations they make on here about everyone else are utterly laughable. Personally, if I walk into a room and lots of people are talking about a topic I know little about, I keep my mouth shut, listen & learn, & then not make a fool of myself.

Finally, I don't consider myself as having any kind of brand loyalty & totally fail to understand the concept of it. A computer is a superb productivity & entertainment tool but it is *JUST* a tool, not a fashion accessory. In my view, having to hide oneself behind a brand label indicates a fear of being left outside of "the crowd" and I respect people who are individualists, not sheep.

Re:Short answer: no

[Dusty101]

OK, I'll bite. At least in my own case, the argument in this sub-thread is a load of rubbish.

I'm a scientist, and my main machine's a MacBook Pro. I've been using Apple's pro line of laptops since, oh, about 2003. Prior to that, I'd routinely used various flavors of Unix, Linux & Windows. In my time, I've built custom kernels, debugged Linux USB WiFi drivers, built my own machines, renovated ThinkPads, all that sort of thing. I've had machines running Ubuntu since its earliest days, installed Slackware & Red Hat on Pentiums, and I wouldn't have touched Mac OS 9 with a ten-foot pole. I'm not trying to boast here, just make the point that I'm not one of the "Oooh! Shiny!" stereotypical morons that you seem to want to portray as Mac users.

I choose to use a Mac for the following reasons:

- I get all the benefits of a Unix workstation (multiple shells, system stability, Unix userland tools, security by design, etc.), coupled to a GUI that even a novice user can use.

- I get access to more-or-less all of the leading professional-class applications natively that Windows users have (Photoshop, MS Office, etc.). None of that mucking about with different versions of WINE is needed.

  - If I want to, I can equally opt to go with the Open Source alternatives (the GIMP, OpenOffice, etc.). (Personally, I use a combination of both commercial and Free (in all senses) software. There are man OS X-optimized builds these days.

- There's all the full versions of the Apple software that are provided as standard with the machine (iLife, etc.).

- I can get all of this in a well-built box that (when purchased) was within $50 of the price of a Dell Windows laptop aimed at the same market ( I know: I specced up both machines myself).

- Less messing about in general to get functionality. I won't claim that "It Just Works", but "It's Generally Much Less Hassle" is probably true. For instance, I recently set up OpenVPN on my heterogeneous network at home. It took me 4 or 5 evenings to get OpenVPN up and running reliably on my Linux box, 1 evening to set it up on my Windows 7 machine, and 10 mins to set it up on my Mac. Now admittedly, the Linux box is acting as the server, and I did set it up on that first, but the number of patches, updates, etc. that needed to be applied was ridiculous on the Linux box.

Sure: it's not perfect: I think that Apple should be more serious about system security at times, and I do like the repository approach to package management (and it's clearly popular, as that's basically what the various mobile App stores are). I love the idea of Free software, and have a real soft spot for Linux.

However, gven the above, I personally consider the choice to be a no-brainer. And it's not just me: at a typical work meeting or conference (at least in my own field), Macs are usually represented at the 50% level. And there are plenty of people at those meetings that are smarter & better-funded than me.

Re:Short answer: no

[pandrijeczko]

Now admittedly, the Linux box is acting as the server, and I did set it up on that first, but the number of patches, updates, etc. that needed to be applied was ridiculous on the Linux box.

I'd love to know what Linux distro you were using & how long ago you did this because this doesn't sound much like any modern Linux distro today - sure, there may be a need to download a new version or use the package manager to download the VPN apps in the first place, but this idea of "dependency hell" pretty much disappeared years ago. I myself use the "roll your own" Gentoo Linux distro and there's some mucking about with putting the correct USE and KEYWORDS in place, I might even have to do a kernel recompile to build VPN adapter support into the kernel - but then Gentoo's not for the faint-hearted Linux user anyway...

But I cannot argue with much else you've said and it's actually refreshing to speak to an Apple user who is able to rationally explain why he made the choice that he did and clearly knows a bit about how computers and OSes work.

Unfortunately, that isn't the case for most of the other Apple users on here...

Re:Short answer: no

[LodCrappo]

I understand what you are saying, and if it adds anything let me say that I own a Mac as well for similar reasons. However, you and I are not typical Apple users, if the people I have met and the comments I have read are any indicator.

I've never seen an Apple advertisement that mentions Macs being a nice Unix workstation, availability of optimized OS X builds of OSS, or frankly any of the things that lead me to use a Mac.

These are great benefits of the platform and clearly they drive some fraction of sales on their own merit, but they are simply not part of Apple's message to consumers. Apple is not selling awesome Unix boxes, they are selling an experience that will make you different. I find it very unappealing, and I find dealing with the people attracted by their marketing hype equally unpleasant.

no worries...

[Thud457]

Good thing their motto is "don't be evil", so they won't abuse this capability.


whoops, that's them other guys.... awwww fuuuuuuuu

Re:no worries...

[sg_oneill]

No, "Dont be evil" is Googles motto.

Apples ethics, like its design principles, strive for balance.

Apple says "Don't be evil too often."

Did anyone else...

[rotide]

Did anyone else read the title as "Forced Aids Coming To OS X?".

While I'm no Apple fan, I was starting to think they were dirtier than I had previously thought.

Re:If its in the OS kernel you're stuffed otherwis

[betterunixthanunix]

Keep in mind that Apple has, in the past, crippled the ability of users to debug certain processes in Mac OS X -- processes like iTunes -- presumably because they had a vested interest in thwarting those users. What makes you think that they would allow you to run kill on a process that makes them money?

Personally, I want to say that this is just FUD. Much as I disagree with Apple's tactics, I do not think they would bother shoving iAds in Mac OS X; I think it is more likely that they will just shove iOS (with iAds) onto more product lines, and reserve OS X for their most expensive workstations.

So did subby even read the article?

[SilverJets]

First line in the linked article (and it is even in bold):

Apple could be creating an operating system supported by advertisements, allowing users to obtain the software at a reduced price, or for free, in exchange for being required to view ads.

Subby's summary:

Forced iAds Coming To OS X?

Sure, forced ads for those that bought the subsidized copy of the OS. You get what you pay for.

Re:So did subby even read the article?

[shutdown -p now]

Heck, it's even more explicit in TFA, quoted from the text of the patent itself!

Such a system could be used on computers placed in public places, allowing free access to the Internet on a terminal without paying a fee. Users could also choose to pay the fee and avoid the advertisements if they wish.

And yet above are several dozen comments already predicting doom-and-gloom for Apple, poking fun at "iExperience", and making conjectures at just how precisely the pure "fanbois" will be abused by this. Slashdot at its finest.

There are many legitimate reasons to bash Apple, but this isn't one of them, and the story is yet another comment/view farm riding the Apple hate wave.

Re:If its in the OS kernel you're stuffed otherwis

[Mitchell314]

... its probably nothing that kill -9 couldn't solve.

. . . he smugly thinks until he hears the words "I can't let you do that, Dave."

Re:Interesting

[BrokenHalo]

Apparently Jobs' research has proven to him that Mac users will love having functionality disabled while they are forced to watch a super-cool ad.

I think I'll just continue to live in the dark ages, thanks. A good evening for me is flobbing out on a sofa with a bottle of single-malt (and a glass), a good book and a selection of good CDs set up to play consecutively. Not necessarily in that order.

I really don't think that Jobs guy has much to teach me.

Cool. Exploits.

[SCHecklerX]

Cool. The exploits should be interesting.

Comcast had this crap on settop box for years appl

[Joe The Dragon]

Comcast had this crap on set top box for years apple is late. Come on add's on each page of the small 4:3 on screen guide that looks real bad on a HD as well.

Ever seen an "Intel Inside" Sticker on a Mac

[Karlt1]

http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2007/08/why_no_intel_in.html

If Apple won't put an "Intel Inside" sticker on a Mac forgoing millions of co-marketing dollars what makes anyone think they would integrate ads with the OS?

Re:Ever seen an "Intel Inside" Sticker on a Mac

[pandrijeczko]

Because Intel wouldn't pay as much "millions of co-marketing dollars" to Apple as other advertisers would?

Because without Intel, Apple would have no computers to sell but would still have pathological hatred & envy of Google?

Because fanbois are so attached to Apple that they will always find positive justifications for whatever Apple does to them?

Re:Ever seen an "Intel Inside" Sticker on a Mac

[Karlt1]

So even though Apple is the only major computer company that doesn't put "Intel Inside" stickers on their computers or load it up with crapware, somehow it is assumed that they will force advertising on their customers?

Re:Ever seen an "Intel Inside" Sticker on a Mac

[pandrijeczko]

Not at all, and with respect you are diverting the argument & arguing semantics.

I made the statement that the reason why Apple computers do not bear "Intel Inside" stickers may simply be due to Intel not paying them enough money for the privelige - perhaps the penetration of Apple computers is so low, compared to PCs, Intel didn't consider it worth worrying about?

Also, Apple users are a captive audience anyway so why would it be necessary to them to advertise the CPU inside? For a computer manufacturer like HP, which uses both Intel and AMD CPUs in their machines, there's probably some reason why it's worth declaring what CPU is inside.

Re:If its in the OS kernel you're stuffed otherwis

[BrokenHalo]

...implying you'll still have root privileges on ad-OSes.

OS X is still BSD-like under the bonnet (or hood, if you're a Merkin), so there's no reason why you can't set up a suitable shell script to deal with this. OS X still comes with a good range of shells by default: bash, csh, ksh, sh, tcsh and my favourite zsh.

World Ends Tomorrow: Story at 11!

[qazwart]

This patent was granted about two years ago. The main point of the patent is to give Apple a way of including ad services in the core of its OS. That service, iAds, is now part of the iPhone OS.

The illustrations and scenarios are probably bogus to make people think this will apply to Mac OS X and for a completely different purpose. Read the patent carefully (patent #20090265214), and you'll see it applies directly to iAds.

Claim 1. A computer-implemented method for operating a device, the method comprising: disabling a function of an operating system in a device; presenting an advertisement in the device while the function is disabled; and enabling the function in response to the advertisement ending.

When you view iAds, the functions of the OS are "disabled" (that is, until you dismiss the iAd). The OS is reenabled once the iAd is dismissed.

Claim 5. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising selecting the function among a plurality of functions before each advertisement presentation.

Sounds like iAds.

Claim 12. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising presenting in the device a user-selectable control that when activated triggers at least one selected from the group consisting of: causing presentation of a page from an advertiser associated with the advertisement; recording a user rating of the advertisement; again presenting the advertisement; sharing the advertisement with another user; initiating a transaction for user purchase of a product that eliminates the presentation of advertisements on the device; postponing presentation of the advertisement; causing the advertisement to be presented ahead of schedule; causing a previous advertisement to be presented; causing a preview of a subsequent advertisement to be presented; causing an overview of all available advertisements to be presented; and initiating a transaction for user purchase of a product or service to which the advertisement relates.

Yup, iAds.

If you've never applied for a patent, you don't understand this weird world.

• When you apply for a patent, you must keep the patent broad enough that no one else can make a slight modification and get around your patent. For example, I come up with a totally new and cool device. Let's say a holographic sex robot. I use the term "keyboard based control pad" to define how this device works. Someone copies my holographic sex robot, but doesn't use a "keyboard based control pad". My patent is useless.
• You also need to keep the patent defined tight enough to avoid prior art. Imagine this time I take care of defining my holographic sex robot as a mere electronically enabled sex device, that way, no one could build a similar device, but make it less robotic and thus avoid my patent. In this case, someone could show prior art by showing that there are already electronically enabled sex devices on the market.
• When you apply for a patent, you are showing intentions of future directions and thus alerting potential competitors. Imagine if you're an electronics gaming company and you're thinking of building a holographic sex robot. You come up with some unique features and want to patent them. But, you must be careful not to alert your potential competitors what you have in mind. They could try to throw up their own patents in front of your efforts, or come up with their own sex robots before you get a chance with your holographic sex robot. Instead, when you file your patent, you pretend the patent covers a new unique touch interface with a certain responsive IO. You draw console screens to illustrate how your device works. You never mention the words "holographic", "sex", or "robot". Now, when you come out with your holographic sex robot at CES in Las Vegas, you've taken the market by complete surprise.

Of course, there is the case that Apple will never use this patent. Most patents applied for are never used

As an Apple fan since day 2.

[nurb432]

I can say that if they were to implement that patent in this fashion they can kiss me good bye for good. But, like others here, i think that the poster is misinterpreting where this is headed.

Only time will tell of course.

As a side note i detect some hypocrisy here as i remember when the rumor was that Linux laptops/desktops would be coming out that would be subsidized with ads everyone applauded. ( well not everyone.. i for one didn't )

iLens

[smittyman]

In 20 years you will receive an implanted lens (iLens)at birth showing you commercials each time you blink ;-)

Reminds me of Ghost in the Shell's "Stand alone complex" where in our case the "adds industry" has gotten a life of it's own. Commercials for the sake of itsself.

I am more inclined NOT to get the product if i stumble across an add. If you need the add to sel it, there is something wrong with your product.

Re:If its in the OS kernel you're stuffed otherwis

[dzfoo]

Yes, and how is that working out for you in your iPhone?

JailBreaking is something different, as it requires basically patching the kernel after a buffer-overrun attack.

        -dZ.

Re:If its in the OS kernel you're stuffed otherwis

[BrokenHalo]

Yes, and how is that working out for you in your iPhone?

What iPhone? I'm talking about computers, not media consumption boxes encumbered with crippleware.

Let advertising ring!

[Greymoon]

All cows will have bells. Bells will ring from sea to shining sea. - Smiling Ad Guy.

Re:Interesting

[shutdown -p now]

GP is a known troll around here, and intended to provoke people not fond of Apple into posting such comments. Never mind him.

Re:Stuck at 5%

[phantomfive]

It's not stuck at 5%. It's growing quickly. Last quarter, for example, Macintosh sales were ~30% higher than the year before, and half of those were to new customers. It's been a while since fanboys were the main driving force of sales at Apple. Judging from the comments, if they had their way, the iPhone 4 would have been a failure. But it's selling better than any other iPhone (I don't know why, to be honest, but it is).

Re:If its in the OS kernel you're stuffed otherwis

[dzfoo]

The point is that the same "BSD-Based" OS is in those devices as in the current Mac computers, so its lineage has little to do with how the hardware is adapted to support a version of the OS where ads are forced.

      -dZ.

Re:To see this comment you must view a series of a

[vux984]

"Click here to go back to Google and find some other site that has the same damn thing for free" ...back to google?!? Might as well just view the long series of advertisements then.

Even on a Mac...

[CallsignBaron]

Unfortunately, even on a Mac you still get the "MS office 30 day nag trial".

Re:Even on a Mac...

[BasilBrush]

Unfortunately, even on a Mac you still get the "MS office 30 day nag trial".

Only if you choose to download such a thing from Microsoft. It isn't bundled with a Mac.

Re:Even on a Mac...

[UnknowingFool]

Well since it's MS software, it's unlikely you will get it free from Apple. Also if you use it then it nags. If you never use it, it never bothers you.

A software patent to like

[21mhz]

Finally, a patent that I want the claimant to hold, so that others do not try to reproduce it.

Apple Ads

[helix2301]

I can't imagine this that would be so bad. People would defiantly be build an OS ad blocker. This would defiantly turn users off users to the Mac that's like asking for problems.

Goodbye, Apple.

[prograde]

If this comes to pass, where do I turn in my fanboy card?

How is this any different

[future assassin]

Then all the free Internet and free computer programs in the early 2000's. You had to watch ads in exchange for the free Internet access or free computer.

Re:How is this any different

[pandrijeczko]

You answered your own question - if they were here in the early 2000's, by implication they are not here now.

And if they are not here now, then it can only be because they didn't work.

Death knell for Mac OS and Apple?

[Heebie]

I know I will absolutely NOT tolerate having to view ads on a device that I have bought & paid for. To view content that someone has spent money developing..sure.. but if I've paid for the device, and I've paid for the O/S, ads will *NOT* be welcomed.. and it is something that would cause me to put Linux on my Macbook over.

Re:Oh. So they're in the malware business now.

[solios]

If this ever happened to me, there wouldn't be much of a decision-making process. I'd either roll back the OS to a version that actually works (eg doesn't have the ad shit), disable the ad thing somehow (even if it means going crazy with the hosts file), or, failing all of that, just install Windows on my mini.

I did the same thing with tynt.com - That it's an ad/analytics thing is one thing. That the assholes break twenty-plus years of clipboard DWIM in the process, however.... unforgivable. Absolutely unforgivable. Fortunately, you can add tcr.tynt.com to your hosts file - problem solved.

Re:Stuck at 5%

[Lawrence_Bird]

mac sales != market share.

Have you heard of churn? Quicker turnover of the exisiting base? I'm sure you can find other sources besides this one - some will be about the same, some will be higher but the reality is OSX is quite in line with the historical market share of Apple products (low).

And I still maintain, even after being marked troll by some fanboys, that MOST OSX users will NOT want to muck about with linux or BSD desktops if they revolt over iAds. Remember - Apple has forever claimed their OS 'just works' so that you can be creative (or insert some other verb). What % of their base are willing to get messy, as is inevitable with linux and bsd (I think I speak from some experience having used various linux distros and bsd since 1990). and deal with difficulties in getting hardware to work or finding suitable open source software alternatives? There will be only one direction for those to go and its (back) to Win XXX.

Obligatory: Wine Is Not-an Emulator!

[yet-another-lobbyist]

If you don't even know what WINE stands for and you're not aware of the subtleties of this kind of software, it doesn't look like you are qualified to publicly bad-mouth it.

Pretty simple

[kilodelta]

Just blot out the ad servers at the router level. Unless of course they make the operation of the software conditional upon being able to connect to the ad server.

But there are ways around that too.

Re:Pretty simple

[pandrijeczko]

Great, thanks for the advice!

Since I know I cannot do this on the cheap router that I use for my broadband, I will definitely call my ISP tomorrow & ask them for the root password onto their routers so I can configure personal "router level" ad-blocking for myself...

Re:Stuck at 5%

[VGPowerlord]

Last quarter, for example, Macintosh sales were ~30% higher than the year before

24.7% in the US according to Gartner; the world-wide stats weren't in the top 6, so I can't see them without buying Gartner's research paper.

However, in the same time period, the entire market across all vendors increased by 16%.

and half of those were to new customers.

[Citation needed]

Maybe if the OS is free...

[JaySSSS]

I could see this if the OS were free. However, if they're going to charge me $130 freakin' bucks, I better not see any ads!

Re:Stuck at 5%

[phantomfive]

[Citation needed]

I got my numbers from Apple themselves, in the investor conference call on Tuesday, and the precise number is 33% increase in sales year-over-year from the same quarter last year. You can listen to the call yourself on Apple's website, or here is a summary of some of the biggest stuff. Apple's numbers are more accurate than Gartner's, unless you think Apple is outright lying about their numbers and foresee jailtime for their executives in the near future. Also of note is that sales in Asia are up 71%, and sales in Europe are up 46%; although that's not as impressive as it sounds because they had a smaller marketshare to begin with in Asia, it is still a number not many vendors would complain about.

Re:Stuck at 5%

[phantomfive]

Those figures are worldwide, and include places like China where OSX has little hold (and Microsoft doesn't really either since most people pirate Windows). And yet they are still growing. If you look at US marketshare, it's above 10%. If you look at consumer marketshare (and remove business computers), it's even higher. And it's growing. Mac sales in Asia grew 71% year-over-year. You can talk about 'quick turnover of the existing base,' but that doesn't take into account that half of the sales growth this quarter was from first-time buyers. That means 16.5% of their Mac sales came from switchers. And that was in the last quarter: your graph doesn't take into account the last quarter. It also doesn't take into account earlier than 2009; if it did, you would see that market-share has nearly doubled since 2004. In other words, your assertion doesn't make a very careful analysis of reality and goes astray. Macintosh is growing in popularity. (and while we're talking, the evidence I've heard is that Apple has a slower turnover of the existing base than Windows. I'd be interested in seeing some statistics though, if you have some to drag out).

I agree with your other point.

Apple has been jealous all these years

[ohiovr]

For years OS X has been free of malware and viruses. They've been feeling left out. So this is how they got back at windows users.

This opens a new can of worms

[Ozlanthos]

If I ever get dumb enough to waste the money on an Apple machine again(I'd only done it before because A) Mac Os 8 was a superior product to winblows 95, B) the G3 processor was vastly superior to the P1 and P2, and C) Apple had done the smartest thing they'd done since going into business and opened up their OS licensing to 3rd party hardware vendors, thus allowing Power Computing to bring in another 100,000+ Mac OS users into the fold), I will want to install an iAd-blocker! Why (in the age of the internet, where if you want "ANYTHING" you can go online and find someone to buy it from) should I have to put up with ads that entirely disrupt my system, just so Apple can have another revenue stream? With 10's of billions in liquid assets you'd think that ol megalomaniacal Jobs could say..."hmmm I think we have enough revenue coming in....But NO, got to stash a portal into the OS itself to FORCE people to watch more fucking commercials!!! If Apple is going to be like that, I'll just stick to building my own boxes and install Ubuntu!

-Oz

Re:What's this?

[pandrijeczko]

Ahem!

1) "I am not an Apple fanboi" != "I am an AOL user".

2) Who are AOL anyway?

I remember now why I don't read the comments

[mightyscotchpine]

hum

Re:Stuck at 5%

[LodCrappo]

But it's selling better than any other iPhone (I don't know why, to be honest, but it is).

I am not trying to troll, just an observation and let me be quick to say my thoughts are based on the numbers as I have found them in various articles, could be off a little or a lot.

While the iPhone 4 sold better than any previous iPhone, it also had the highest percentage of purchases coming from existing iPhone users. Despite good sales, the platform did not add a huge amount of new users to the iPhone platform. I've seen estimates that from 70 to 75% of sales were to existing users.

At the same time, we have Android adding new users at an incredible rate, 160,000 per day and growing fast is the last statistic Google released. This means even using aggressive numbers, Android added more new users to it's platform during the first three days of iPhone sales than iPhone added. It continues to outpace the iPhone in growth, both in number of users and in mobile web usage.

As I said, I could be getting it all wrong here, but it seems like the iPhone platform is actually losing market share despite the relative success of the iPhone 4. I suppose in a year or two I'll be able to see if this is true or not. And yes of course I am biased.. I really don't care if iPhone grows, shrinks or whatever, I just love to see the growth in Android because I really enjoy the platform, and in some ways it seems competition with Apple is the only way to sustain that.

Applications

[krischik]

The advertising is initiated by the applications not the OS. The OS only provides the service. Buy for proper applications instead off pseudo-free applications and you would be save.

 

Free Apps.

[krischik]

The advertising is initiated by so called "free" applications you might install in addition to the device you payed for.

No.

[MrMacman2u]

Because the slashdot summary is little more than a steaming pile of FUD AND people are spazzing out all over the place and making wild assumptions, accusations and blind pro/anti Apple statements, I read TFA.
Please note, despite my nickname, I'm no fan-boy, however, I do use a Mac and an iPhone and I like the clean, well engineered look and operation of them both, so I use them. If another company and product offered something better, then I'd use THEIR products.

I also use Linux and am fluent in even modern versions of Windows despite having abandoned it in personal use around Windows 98...

So, lets get this train wreck a goin'.

From the appearance of the patent, it's going to be much like the iAd framework that is already in iOS 4 and it's going to be used on and targeted toward application developers that will be written for the desktop.

The disabling of "features" seems to be referring to the application features, like the ability to advance to the next level, save, print, etc...

Not a big deal really, it's basically nagware but with a unified OS-level enforcement right?

Right.

So, why am I now saying that if Apple implements this that I WILL abandon Mac OS X and figure out a way to convert fully to Linux.

I'm already mostly there, it's just several applications I require that are pinning me to commercal OS's, like Adobe's Creative Suite, which can not run on linux, hence it's currently regulated to my laptop and it's well used there with my Mac desktop of course being my main "grunt" machine.

That said, I will not allow such an atrocity of a framework to infect my desktop. I hate advertising... No, hate is far too wishy washy of a word... I LOATH advertising, with every fiber of my being I despise it.

I can stomach it on my iPhone by ignoring the banner or (preferably) buying apps without ads, but if you, as a software developer, are going to use this "Apple Approved and Provided" cripple-ware bullshit and FORCE me to waste time watching ads in order to use parts of your badly coded piece of SHIT, then you are sadly mistaken AND you've lost a potential customer. Forever.

If this is definitely going to be implemented in a future version of Mac OS X, this long time Mac user will pre-emptively abandon that operation system and immediately begin discouraging people from using OS X instead of offering it to them as a potential alternative.

This is not an empty threat. I can and will abandon your operating system, Apple, and it'll be just as complete and effortless as when I dumped Windows.

dare

[Tom]

I doubt they dare. They are not desperate for cash, and they would be stupid, fucked-up fools to pull a stunt like that. Even though I've become quite a Mac fan over the years since I switched (from Linux, btw) one single OS-enforced ad on my screen would be enough for me to ditch the entire platform right then and there.

Yes, I hate advertisement. The line between regular ads and spam is very thin if you think about it, and we all agree that the death penalty is too good for spammers, don't we? Ad people aren't much better. And the second they force you to view ads, they cross the line.

I won't be running a spam OS, no matter if it's Linux, Windows or OS X behind the ads.

Re:Stuck at 5%

[petermgreen]

that doesn't take into account that half of the sales growth this quarter was from first-time buyers. That means 16.5% of their Mac sales came from switchers.
Without knowing how they define first time buyer (e.g. does someone buying thier second mac but buying it for delivery to a different address than last time count as a first time buyer) that statistic is kind of meaningless.

Re:If its in the OS kernel you're stuffed otherwis

[Issarlk]

Suppose that you have shell acces.

Here you are, on your bash shell:
macos:~$ pgrep -f "obnoxious_adware_prog"
7638
macos:~$ kill -9 7638
bash: kill: - Operation not permited
macos:~$ sudo kill -9 7638
Haha! You wish
macos:~$

Hey Apple, here's some news.

[DaVince21]

Worst. Idea. Ever.