Slashdot Mirror
Steve Jobs' Idea For an Ad-Supported OS
milbournosphere writes "It looks like Steve drew up an idea for an ad-supported OS. A patent was filed back in 2009 detailing how it was done. From the article: 'Rather than charge the normal upgrade price, which in those days was $99, he was thinking of shipping a second version of Mac OS 9 that would be given away for free — but would be supported instead by advertising. The theory was that this would pull in a ton of people who didn't normally upgrade because of the price, but Apple would still generate income through the advertising. And any time an owner of the free version wanted to get rid of the advertising, he or she could simply pay for the ad-free version. Steve's team had worked out the preliminary numbers the concept seemed financially sound.'"
Fuck that shit.
Forum post says Mac OS X. I don't think he'd get many takers for Mac OS 9, even if he was giving it away without ads.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Steve Jobs came up with the idea of ad supported software, that you can pay for to remove the ads! Awesome! The man truely was a genius.
That's a classic bait n' switch. How usable would an OS that pops ads all the time be? What if, after installing, they upped the ad frequency etc? Would the ads be embedded or fetched over the network? Could you downgrade to your previously legally obtained, ad-free, OS without losing all your work?
This isn't an Apple bash or even a Steve Jobs bash. That idea is pure, unadulterated, marketing evilness.
Especially in the paste a sheet of paper over the offending bit of screen department. People will do crazy things for the perception of saving a few bucks.
Nothing cheapens a product like plastering it with ads even if you can get rid of them by paying.
Part of the patent is replacing ads in applications with ads that send money to Apple instead.
The summary is confusing and inaccurate. The patent was filed in 2008 (not 2009), and the reference to MacOS 9 was referring to a piece in a book ("Insanely Simple: The Obsession That Drives Apple's Success" by Ken Segall, according to the linked article) that suggests that the idea for the patent originated in 1999 (not 2008 or 2009) with Steve Jobs -- back when OS9 was heading towards release, making the reference to OS9 actually make sense.
All this gleamed from clicking the sole link in the /. post, spending 15 seconds skimming it, and having a very basic knowledge of recent OS history. Proofreading, please?
Who would have thought of such a thing but Steve Jobs. Even from the grave he is still amazing us. Provide stuff for free using advertising - I can't get over it.
It's come to this? Advertising permeating everything we do because it in some way makes what we're doing more affordable?
We all pay the cost of advertising. The fact that the majority of the Web is ad-supported is depressing.
Please wait.. I can't load your text editor yet because I'm trying to load the ads up that you must view as part of the overall "user experience"
cat patent.txt | sed -e 's/ad-supported/Chineese Water Torture/g' > /dev/null
could pull such an idea off, they originally tried it with Android and got nowhere, albeit in the mobile industry they had carriers to deal with too. They will probably try it again in a couple of years with Chrome OS, I remain sceptical it can work. Apple didn't and still doesn't have the muscle in the advertisement business to do such a thing.
The more I read about Jobs, the more he sounds like a Supervillian from a B-movie? Maybe its just the black turtlenecks...
There were companies in the late 90's and early 2000 that were doing this with PC's and free internet. How soon we forget. Eudora or Opera anyone?
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
First when they are paid for the ads, then again when the hapless consumer pays the full 99$? If at least the upgrade price was pro-rata with the amount of ad revenue Apple made in the meantime...
1. Put adverts in OS
.
.
.
.
2. Call it an "upgrade", not adware
3. Patent it
4. Threaten all add supported software makers with lawsuits (planned)
5. Make unfathomable wealth by not actually inventing or even implementing anything (goal)
How do you know for sure it's his idea?
It's been my experience that in any company of over 30 people, the top guy's idea really wasn't his. That he just got to call it his, because of being where he is in the company.
"Steve Jobs came up with the idea of ad supported software, that you can pay for to remove the ads! Awesome! The man truely was a genius."
No, he only took it to a new level, and in a traditional Steve Jobs style - a lower level.
He was cheap.
Back in 1999, there was freepc.com. They didn't just give away the OS - they gave you a whole computer. Applications could only use a 640 x 480 area of the screen, which was a common monitor size back then. But FreePC shipped with a bigger monitor and display card. The rest of the screen was devoted to ads.
Like most web sites today. And phones. And tablets...
They were just ahead of their time.
Or how about an ad-supported free computer?
Also, note the date on that article. Steve Jobs was way behind on this one.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
Everytime I turn on my Mac, I get that picture of an apple.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
No longer are their options to remove Ad's from your OS. Doing so is actually against the Law. This is one step towards that direction.
http://apple.slashdot.org/story/09/10/23/1456221/apple-seeks-patent-on-operating-system-advertising
Fandroids hate facts.
Man Jobs was worse than I thought. Not even M$ would do this.
To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
It would only be a matter of time before we have to pay AND see ads in the OS.
But what if they give away this free version of the OS and then double the price of the pay OS?
Obama ate a dog.
My problem is the tray apps and services that are unavoidable that turn my machine into an advertising platform.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
except for the "patented" part.
expandfairuse.org
And yet Google did.
Maybe Eric Schmidt read the patent.
How about an OS that doesn't cost money AND it doesn't have ads either. That would be pretty cool. Surprised no one has thought of this.
Steve Jobs came up with the idea of ad supported software, that you can pay for to remove the ads! Awesome!
Yes, I can see your tongue planted firmly in your cheek.
But it sounds more like Jobs sampled an old, old idea and adapted it. So he stole* it.
For example, the Opera browser did this in the 1990's and dropped it about a decade ago.
Some newspapers did this a hundred years ago.
GrokCo did it with the stone wheel back around the year SFA.
It was about as new as fire in 2009. No wonder the pre-historic farts curating the patent museum gave him a patent.
*The public calls it "sampling", but the hollydead shylock industry insists that it's stealing and their congress buys into that fabrication - so it must be stealing. By their measure, I stole every frigging word I utter.
The clerk should be fired, end up homeless, broke and hairless.
Google have an ad supported OS? Pray tell..
is it possible?
Chrome OS -- it's designed to integrate with the Google ecosystem, whose purpose is advertising in exchange for services. It's a step removed, but it's the moral equivalent.
I'm hoping that Apple applied for the patent just to block Google from ever doing it. Jobs might have conceived of it, but he had the wisdom not to do it and now the idea sounds like something much more likely to get deployed by Google than Apple.
Man Jobs was worse than I thought. Not even M$ would do this.
Yes, Microsoft would never foist ad-supported software on its users
On the other hand, Apple has been foisting this on...well, nobody, since they decided not to go ahead with it.
It seems to me that an improvement to this model would be to have the OS upgrade be ad supported until your ad views paid for the $99 price tag of the upgrade. That way, the OS company gets their money, you work off your OS cost by viewing ads, and you don't have to view ads for an infinite duration.
Apple has always tried to steal things from Android to catch up.
after it gets bricked by viruses like I have to support all the other operating systems for friends and relatives, you've got another think coming.
As in, there is no prior art for giving software away for free (or for a reduced price) based on forcing the user to view the occasional advertisement?
I am surprised Apple isn't using this "patent" to go after the ad-supported Kindle in an effort to get the upper hand in content (especially after Apple's smack-down on price fixing for e-books)....
i just give you a wall in my bedroom so I can fall asleep to car insurance promos. sheesh.
wait...i already do
Well, it's like an app that launches apps. Cue "yo dawg i herd you like ad-supported apps so we put ad-supported apps in you ad-supported app so u can be bothered while u're being bothered".
I think an idea like this could actually work and be accepted if the ads weren't displayed forever; so, for example, if you get the ad supported version, you have to deal with ads for say 6 months if you use it at an average rage, but after that, you will have payed your fee for it, and the ads would disappear permanently.
If i remember right, some obscure company tried something like this with a Linux laptop where you got the middle of the screen to yourself, and the border was filled with ads
It was a bad idea and it failed.
However, if you look at the average persons 'browser' these days with all the tool bars and popups, its almost like we are doing it now anyway..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Assuming that all security updates hit both versions at the same time I love this...
I wish MS had that option, it was annoying and frightening to see how many people I knew back in 09-10 that refused to upgrade from XP to 7 because they didn't want to invest in their 2-4 year old PCs that were due for replacement when or IF they got a bonus, tax refund or whatever a few months or even a year later. I would rather see a 5 year old PC running ad supported win 7 with all updates than AD Free XP.
Back when iOS was at version 3, iPod touch system updates were $9.99. When they released iOS4 with iAd, these became free upgrades. I always assumed the iPhone upgrades were free because the network wanted the handsets on the latest OS because they were easier/cheaper to manage.
I wonder if the price will ever be calculated as the original price minus the profit they've already made from you. Letting the company double-dip by collecting and selling your info, getting paid for ads, and then shelling out full price for the software sounds like a nightmare to me.
As we all know, an ad-supported OS is soooooooooooooo much different than an ad-supported application. It's Revolutionary!
I have a machine at home that I'd like to bring back to life. If Microsoft offered an ad-supported version of 7 that didn't cost any money, I'd be very happy with that. And seeing as how that doesn't exist right now....
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
MS *did* do this with their office suite.
There's an edition of Vista that doesn't let you change the background (that's a premium feature!), or run more than 5 tasks at a time. It usually comes bundles with the ad-supported version of office, which takes about 50% of your screen real-estate on the netbooks that actully had it pre-installed.
As in, there is no prior art for giving software away for free (or for a reduced price) based on forcing the user to view the occasional advertisement?
I am surprised Apple isn't using this "patent" to go after the ad-supported Kindle in an effort to get the upper hand in content (especially after Apple's smack-down on price fixing for e-books)....
It's just an application, and is still in examination . The claims have also changed significantly from as originally filed.
Google already did it. They don't advertise on the OS, they just take all your information and sell it to advertisers. Same family of stupidity, I suppose.
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
what a genius!
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
So many of us turn up our noses, pay for Internet access, and keep using systems that may be less powerful than Free-PC's offer (333 MHz, 4GB hard drive, and 32MB of memory).
Wow. Talk about a trip down memory lane...
no joke we did that pre dot crash free os free pc free internet all ad supported. . but then the net economy crashed ads became worthless and all the programs failed.
Way back in in the first Internet boom of '98, a few outfits used to give away "free" Macs and PCs that put ads on the desktop in order to subsidize them.
www.chihuahuarescue.com- Help to end dog abuse, abandonment and cruelty
"my job here is done"
-- --
NETZero?
Eudora?
Opera?
all ad based and free.
The parent was correct. They just didn't mention they did all of the above while riding a skateboard.
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
Not a single mod point was given.
-- --
Oh man if they put ads into my OS I switch to Linux instantly, not kidding here!...
i remember a while back there was a 'free' pc you could get that just had ads on a huge part of the screen. am i imagining things?
Oh, kind of like Android. Android is more an ad delivery and user profiling tool than an actual app platform. iPhone/Mac/iPad are getting there slowly but surely.
Organization? You must be joking..
I somehow think this could lead to some clashing with those that pay for ads on those pages that get replaced. Should be interesting to see whether something like this holds up in courts.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I got one of those FreePCs. It was actually a decent computer for the time. Before a year was up the company went bankrupt or something and they sent information on how to remove the ads. I was a poor student at the time and never could have afforded a computer of that quality at the time.
by the standard which is routinely applied to Apple on slashdot. All anyone has ever done is combine concepts that already existed.
Google? OMG no, they just made a more polished Alta-Vista, which itself was based on turbogopher, which was based on the index in the back of most books, which were based on cave drawings, blah blah blah.
slashdot is so predictably delusional it's really starting to get boring.
Really? That's all? Let's see... 2000 lbs, about 150 lbs/person ... some thirteen people. In my view, when only thirteen people want to corral themselves in a walled garden, with or without ads, that's real progress.
"This window was brought to you by Mr Muscle. Mr Muscle: for when your windows need to be extra shiny."
Anybody know the release date for pPhones to be marketed by Apple later this year.
According to a source inside Foxconn, the Chinese OEM of Apple, there will be a pet-driven interface based on Siri, with one for dogs and one for cats.
Apparently it enables pets to communicate with surprising fidelity.
I can't wait.
we all shall be...
Original Nike Air JordansThere is a promising market here for good quality of light weight Air Jordan Sneakers; especially discounted Air Jordan Sneakers has soft texture but also exquisite appearance, and costs very cheap. I think its worth for you buying our Air Jordan Shop.
I mean that's what android is, an advertising supported OS.
I have often wondered why a thing like Apple is so successful - or indeed successful at all - and this only confirms my view.
I have tried using some of their products: the OSX, the iPhone, the iPad - and they constantly seem to work against what I try to achieve. This could be due to my immense stupidity, but then, how did I manage to become a very well paid SW engineer?
The only explanation I can think of (for Apple's success, that is) is that it works like X Factor: we all know it is utter crap, but for some reason people are attracted to it because it is 'cool'. Not much of an explanation, I know; hopefully somebody can offer a better one.
> Google did not use their search engine patents as competitive weapons. Instead, they chose to make their money the old-fashioned way: By selling things that their customers find useful.
Google makes money by selling your eyes (via advertising) to corporations. Apple makes money by selling things that people want. Check the scoreboard, how much money has Google made from hardware or software sales--they aren't in the same league as Apple.
First thing he did was to file a patent for some obvious idea that I have heard about about 20 years ago. You might think he did it to secure his right to incorporate the idea into his future product. Nah, the patent is only here to sue anyone who would try to go for this solution.
I didn't notice any ads on my OSX desktop today.