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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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.

WTF...

[NRP128]

Wow. Way to spread the FUD.

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?

"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.

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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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]

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.

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: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.

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: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!

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

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...

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: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: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: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: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.

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

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: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: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: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.

Re:What's this?

[pandrijeczko]

Ahem!

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

2) Who are AOL anyway?