patentpundit writes "On April 18, 2008, Apple Computer applied for a patent relating to an 'invention' that allows for showing advertisements within an operating system. The first named inventor on the patent application is none other than Steve Jobs. The patent application published and became available for public inspection on October 22, 2009. If implemented, the invention would make it possible for advertisements to be displayed on a variety of devices, including desktop computers, cell phones, PDAs, and more. In one alarming aspect, the device could be disabled while the advertisements run, thereby forcing users to let the advertisement run its course before the system would unlock and allow further use. In an even more invasive scenario, explained in the patent application, the user could be required to do something, such as click to continue, in order to verify that they are actively watching the advertisement and haven't simply walked away while the ad runs. Whether Apple would implement such an invention is unknown, but it is possible that they think there are others out there who might want to implement such invasive advertising. It is possible Apple wanted to get ahead of the curve and file this patent so that if any company is silly enough to engage in Big Brother advertising, then Apple will get a royalty. I sure hope this is not the future of advertising."
Does anyone in this thread really think that Apple, a company utterly obsessed with aesthetics, good design, and usability, would put ads in their operating system? Not likely. Remember when Apple switched to Intel chips? There were no "Intel Inside" stickers for Macs.
I think the poster and the first commenter have it right: this is a protection measure to make sure that any company stupid enough to try and set this precedent (advertising in the OS) will have to pay through the nose to Apple. It is in fact, the quintessential poison pill.
Just because someone uses one Apple product or service does not mean they use ALL Apple products and services. There are quite a few people who own an iPod or iPhone that do not own a Mac.
If they did, Apple would have a much larger share of PC sales. But they do not, so I guess they have room for improvement in that area. Consider how many Mac vs. PC ads you see on TV and tell me Steve doesn't want more avenues to push Mac ads.
Does anyone in this thread really think that Apple, a company utterly obsessed with aesthetics, good design, and usability, would put ads in their operating system?
Yes, I think they would do it on iPods. I imagine in their talks with record labels they discussed many revenue streams. One could easily be free music downloads if you're willing to watch ads on your iPod.
They could also offer two revenue models for iPhone app publishers: the current cash model or advertising. The OS could block use of the app until the ad is run.
I don't imagine this coming to desktops, but it's definitely a possibility for their more specialized operating systems.
Does anyone in this thread really think that Apple, a company utterly obsessed with aesthetics, good design, and usability, would put ads in their operating system?
Have you used iTunes lately? Ugh. Their design and usability practices are clearly not universal within the company...
... this is a protection measure to make sure that any company stupid enough to try and set this precedent (advertising in the OS) will have to pay through the nose to Apple. It is in fact, the quintessential poison pill.
Wow. I admire Steve Jobs, but not to the point of denial. Jobs cares about athletics... almost as much as he cares about making money. I could easily imagine Apple selling top billing in the ap store or iTunes store to the highest bidder -- or running an ad before you get into the stores.
"Does anyone in this thread really think that Apple, a company utterly obsessed with aesthetics, good design, usability, and marketing would put ads in their operating system?"
Fixed that for you.
While this may truly be a defensive filing, I don't think it is that far fetched that a control-crazed company like Apple wouldn't use this in some fashion. As long as the ads are for Apple products and services, I'm sure Steve Jobs sees nothing wrong with it.
and makes it nearly impossible to install the OS (or first boot) a mac without buying.mac.
I have to experience with the former statements, but this is utter crap. I have installed 2 different releases on my Macbook, and never once did I see more than an ad for.Mac during the install. I was never prompted to create an account. It certainly never hindered my ability to book my machine.
Not to mention the utter lack of any shovelware on a Mac install. No McAfee adds, Quicken shortcuts on your desktop, Printer supplies, etc, etc. There is none of that on any Mac. You get the OS, and no 3rd party crap that has to be uninstalled as soon as you unbox it.
I just don't see Apple pushing any of this into any of it's products, but it can certainly prevent others from doing it as well.
You get the OS, and no 3rd party crap that has to be uninstalled as soon as you unbox it.
Not strictly true. There have been third-party apps, such as a version of Omnigraffle and various games that have shipped with Macs and MacOS. However, it's generally not crap, doesn't draw attention to itself through advertising or require removal, it just sits there dormant unless you decide to use it. Apple also puts trial versions of iWork on Macs, and if memory serves correctly, has also pre-installed trial versions of MS Office in the past (but I might be wrong about that one) and definitely shipped with Internet Explorer at one time.
I think the whole point of the patent is so Apple can profit share should any apps choose to run ads on their devices. For example, if you install an app on your iphone that pops up ads and behaves in any modal way that makes the iphone inoperable, Apple might not like that. In addition to any TOU and contractual obligations imposed on app developers, this gives Apple a patent should an app designer manage to circumvent the TOU in any way.
This reminds me of the "free computers" of 1990 or so, with some of the screen space taken up by extra ads. I think that was just when running the browser though.
The same users that went for those "discounted" PCs with an AOL contract obligation might opt for other cheaper hardware with an ad hook-in subsidizing the purchase.
Pretty much. I've got limited real estate on my screen. Even more so on a netbook. To top it off, I have limited bandwidth, occasionally use metered bandwidth, and often play online games where any interruption is deadly.
I'll actually go one step further: as long as there is any alternative that does not display ads, I will use it. I will pay a significant amount of money (at least a few hundred dollars) and put up with other significant UI issues (including learning a brand new one) if I can get my hands o
I will pay a significant amount of money (at least a few hundred dollars)
Per month? Because eventually, a home Internet connection that's compatible with an operating system that doesn't display ads will cost that much. Consider Trusted Network Connect [wikipedia.org], which allows a DHCP server to quarantine traffic until the the ISP can verify that your computer is running specific proprietary software. No ads, no IP address outside 169.254.0.0/16.
I can imagine the Mac vs PC commercials reversing very quickly if they start doing things (like this) to annoy the user.
We already have pop up advertising like this on PCs that run Windows, they are called "viruses" and "trojans". If Apple did this, surely someone would come up with an "antivirus" product that will rid of the ads.
Worse yet, someone would come up with an OS X virus that displayed pop up ads that promised to get rid of the Apple ads, and then you couldn't tell which ads were Apple, and which
Doesn't putting a logo or a brand name on a product constitute advertising? That's been done all over operating systems since the beginning of time - prior art?
Branding isn't the same as advertising. For one, advertising involves showing ads for products that don't necessarily have anything to do with the one you're using. The tag on the back of your shirt that says who made the shirt isn't an advertisement for that brand, it's just identifying who made the shirt. The design on the front of the shirt, however, is an ad.
Come on, you missed a perfect time for a car analogy. The Chevy cross on the back of a car is just a logo and branding. The stuff painted on these cars [nascar-wallpapers.com] is advertising.
If it's self-referential, it's branding. If it refers to other products, it's advertising.
While it is possible for branding to be just as obnoxious as advertising (e.g. a logo on the shirt bigger than the wearer's head), they are different beasts.
I am an Apple fanboi, born and bred in the soft, comforting womb of the Reality Distortion Field. There is not a single computer or device in my house that was not Designed by Apple in California.
If Apple were to do this on my Mac, or my iPhone, or my iWhateverTheHellElse, I would jump ship like Neo leaving the Matrix*. Apple fanbois are Apple fanbois because we prize elegance and design. Implementing this in OS X would shit on it.
(* Just like in that ONE AND ONLY ONE movie, that had ABSOLUTELY NO sequels... See how good at distorting reality I am?)
You mean the same people who paid to software (OS) and hardware combination and didn't ask Apple what the heck that "impossible to change" Google search in OS Default browser will cause a riot against some ads?
What made me more than angry was the first release and later releases of Safari on fscking Windows had Yahoo search option. iPhone/iPod too. Believe or not, Apple is after couple of cents from Google and that is why they include Google by default. Apple, the 1.6 billion profit making company... I unde
I use to work for them. FreePC, loved the job, no one bitched about getting a free computer. But you didn't have to click on ads, you just had your screen permanently filled with them on the bottom and right side. The remaining area was left for you. They eventually got bought out by emachines and then it became a horrible place to work.
So where is this separation between OS and software on top of the OS? You could say Explorer.exe is just an application on top of the OS. How low does it need to be? Advertisment.dll? Advertisement.sys? Adverisement.Hypervisorkernel?
Seriously. I hope Jobs all the best in this patent pursuit. If Apple succeeds, then I can avoid occurrences of this amazingly offensive idea by the simple expedient of avoiding Apple operating systems, a course of action I'm already pretty much committed to for ample reasons of Apple's corporate citizenship and customer relations.
As far as I'm concerned, this patent will be the legal equivalent of encysting a noxious parasite for 20 years.
company is silly enough to engage in Big Brother advertising
The Big Brother metaphor has finally been dealt its final blow. Big Brother advertising is propaganda. I think a better term for this new patent would be "Jerk Advertising"
After all, they are the advertising kings and now they may have to pay royalties to Apple for the right to embed ads in their own Android OS. How embarrassing for them.
..so software that creates unwanted advertising pop-ups is called "malware" and the authors of such are prosecuted, but then someone decides to write an operating system that does that by design!? What sort of Bizzarro universe did I wake up into this morning anyway? No fucking way, not even if the OS is free would I put up with that shit!
..so software that creates unwanted advertising pop-ups is called "malware" and the authors of such are prosecuted...
It's only called malware and prosecuted if it is deceptively marketed. If you offer a software package designed to show people ads and are upfront about that and it is what users want or it offers a benefit in addition to the ads which users feel outweighs the cost of seeing ads then it is not malware at all. For example, lots of Web apps are partly or completely subsidized by advertising and are not malware.
...but then someone decides to write an operating system that does that by design!?
Maybe, but if someone does then you are free to buy it or not and so long as they are not deceptiv
It is possible Apple wanted to get ahead of the curve and file this patent so that if any company is silly enough to engage in Big Brother advertising, then Apple will get a royalty.
How is this not obvious? There are already devices that lock you out until you watch some advertising. DVD players, for example. This is just a case of grafting something like "in a computer operating system" onto the description of something that's already common.
BTW - It could be argued that DVD players have a "primative" operating system
by Anonymous Coward
on Friday October 23, @12:11PM (#29847859)
If you don't intend to put ads in your OS, why would you need to protect yourself from someone else patenting it? No, this is a patent to preempt "free" advertising-supported commercial operating systems by competitors, namely Google.
Isn't that anti-slashdot-zeitgeist though? Patenting something simply so someone else can't do it? IMO, that sounds like a "patent troll," just not in the typical usage of the phrase.
And I have a hard time putting so much faith in Apple, which has done plenty to not deserve said faith, that they would not advertise - if nothing else, their own products. Apple is looking for money. Just like Microsoft and Google.
I sure hope they get this patent (Score:4, Insightful)
In other news, I use linux?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I sure hope they get this patent (Score:5, Insightful)
Does anyone in this thread really think that Apple, a company utterly obsessed with aesthetics, good design, and usability, would put ads in their operating system? Not likely. Remember when Apple switched to Intel chips? There were no "Intel Inside" stickers for Macs.
I think the poster and the first commenter have it right: this is a protection measure to make sure that any company stupid enough to try and set this precedent (advertising in the OS) will have to pay through the nose to Apple. It is in fact, the quintessential poison pill.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Right(sarcasm). So the Ad will block the whole phone from working while my boss calls and I can't answer it for the next30 seconds.
The idea is stupid. I am actually shocked that IBM or MSFT donthave prior art.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm pretty sure there is some prior art from the dot.com era when someone tried to introduce an ad supported free pc.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple, a company utterly obsessed with aesthetics, good design, and usability, would put ads in their operating system?
And marketing. Don't forget marketing. Maybe Apple wants to show their own ads?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If they did, Apple would have a much larger share of PC sales. But they do not, so I guess they have room for improvement in that area. Consider how many Mac vs. PC ads you see on TV and tell me Steve doesn't want more avenues to push Mac ads.
Re:I sure hope they get this patent (Score:5, Insightful)
Does anyone in this thread really think that Apple, a company utterly obsessed with aesthetics, good design, and usability, would put ads in their operating system?
Yes, I think they would do it on iPods. I imagine in their talks with record labels they discussed many revenue streams. One could easily be free music downloads if you're willing to watch ads on your iPod.
They could also offer two revenue models for iPhone app publishers: the current cash model or advertising. The OS could block use of the app until the ad is run.
I don't imagine this coming to desktops, but it's definitely a possibility for their more specialized operating systems.
Parent
Re: (Score:3)
Does anyone in this thread really think that Apple, a company utterly obsessed with aesthetics, good design, and usability, would put ads in their operating system?
Have you used iTunes lately? Ugh. Their design and usability practices are clearly not universal within the company...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
... this is a protection measure to make sure that any company stupid enough to try and set this precedent (advertising in the OS) will have to pay through the nose to Apple. It is in fact, the quintessential poison pill.
Wow. I admire Steve Jobs, but not to the point of denial. Jobs cares about athletics... almost as much as he cares about making money. I could easily imagine Apple selling top billing in the ap store or iTunes store to the highest bidder -- or running an ad before you get into the stores.
Re: (Score:3)
Fixed that for you.
While this may truly be a defensive filing, I don't think it is that far fetched that a control-crazed company like Apple wouldn't use this in some fashion. As long as the ads are for Apple products and services, I'm sure Steve Jobs sees nothing wrong with it.
iAds...coming soon to OS X 10.7 Frozen Kitten
Re:Apple... maybe rotten to the (dual) core (Score:4, Informative)
and makes it nearly impossible to install the OS (or first boot) a mac without buying .mac.
I have to experience with the former statements, but this is utter crap. I have installed 2 different releases on my Macbook, and never once did I see more than an ad for .Mac during the install. I was never prompted to create an account. It certainly never hindered my ability to book my machine.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not to mention the utter lack of any shovelware on a Mac install. No McAfee adds, Quicken shortcuts on your desktop, Printer supplies, etc, etc. There is none of that on any Mac. You get the OS, and no 3rd party crap that has to be uninstalled as soon as you unbox it.
I just don't see Apple pushing any of this into any of it's products, but it can certainly prevent others from doing it as well.
Re:Apple... maybe rotten to the (dual) core (Score:4, Informative)
You get the OS, and no 3rd party crap that has to be uninstalled as soon as you unbox it.
Not strictly true. There have been third-party apps, such as a version of Omnigraffle and various games that have shipped with Macs and MacOS. However, it's generally not crap, doesn't draw attention to itself through advertising or require removal, it just sits there dormant unless you decide to use it. Apple also puts trial versions of iWork on Macs, and if memory serves correctly, has also pre-installed trial versions of MS Office in the past (but I might be wrong about that one) and definitely shipped with Internet Explorer at one time.
Parent
Re:I sure hope they get this patent (Score:4, Interesting)
I think the whole point of the patent is so Apple can profit share should any apps choose to run ads on their devices. For example, if you install an app on your iphone that pops up ads and behaves in any modal way that makes the iphone inoperable, Apple might not like that. In addition to any TOU and contractual obligations imposed on app developers, this gives Apple a patent should an app designer manage to circumvent the TOU in any way.
Parent
Re:I sure hope they get this patent (Score:5, Insightful)
Ahhh! I see...! Patent trolling, usually nasty, evil and sleazy, is quite alright if it's Apple that is doing it...!
Gotcha.
Parent
Prior Art: (Score:5, Funny)
There is prior art from 2002: http://www.bbspot.com/News/2002/10/bsod_ads.html [bbspot.com]
Parent
Re:I sure hope they get this patent (Score:4, Interesting)
This reminds me of the "free computers" of 1990 or so, with some of the screen space taken up by extra ads. I think that was just when running the browser though.
The same users that went for those "discounted" PCs with an AOL contract obligation might opt for other cheaper hardware with an ad hook-in subsidizing the purchase.
27" iMacs turning into billboards... hmmmm...
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, stupid microsoft! what were they thinking!?
oh wait.. this is apple? Wow, this may actually be the final straw that made Linux win against Apple's Mac OS X.
Fixed that for you. It's still a long way off from competing with Windows, in terms of market share, regardless of how awesome it is.
I dare them! (Score:5, Insightful)
So long as there is a Free (not $$$ free) alternative, all they will do is push users to it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Pretty much. I've got limited real estate on my screen. Even more so on a netbook. To top it off, I have limited bandwidth, occasionally use metered bandwidth, and often play online games where any interruption is deadly.
I'll actually go one step further: as long as there is any alternative that does not display ads, I will use it. I will pay a significant amount of money (at least a few hundred dollars) and put up with other significant UI issues (including learning a brand new one) if I can get my hands o
No ads, no IP (Score:4, Interesting)
I will pay a significant amount of money (at least a few hundred dollars)
Per month? Because eventually, a home Internet connection that's compatible with an operating system that doesn't display ads will cost that much. Consider Trusted Network Connect [wikipedia.org], which allows a DHCP server to quarantine traffic until the the ISP can verify that your computer is running specific proprietary software. No ads, no IP address outside 169.254.0.0/16.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I can imagine the Mac vs PC commercials reversing very quickly if they start doing things (like this) to annoy the user.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I can imagine the Mac vs PC commercials reversing very quickly if they start doing things (like this) to annoy the user.
We already have pop up advertising like this on PCs that run Windows, they are called "viruses" and "trojans". If Apple did this, surely someone would come up with an "antivirus" product that will rid of the ads.
Worse yet, someone would come up with an OS X virus that displayed pop up ads that promised to get rid of the Apple ads, and then you couldn't tell which ads were Apple, and which
Logos (Score:3, Interesting)
Doesn't putting a logo or a brand name on a product constitute advertising? That's been done all over operating systems since the beginning of time - prior art?
Re:Logos (Score:4, Informative)
Branding isn't the same as advertising. For one, advertising involves showing ads for products that don't necessarily have anything to do with the one you're using. The tag on the back of your shirt that says who made the shirt isn't an advertisement for that brand, it's just identifying who made the shirt. The design on the front of the shirt, however, is an ad.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Come on, you missed a perfect time for a car analogy. The Chevy cross on the back of a car is just a logo and branding. The stuff painted on these cars [nascar-wallpapers.com] is advertising.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If it's self-referential, it's branding. If it refers to other products, it's advertising.
While it is possible for branding to be just as obnoxious as advertising (e.g. a logo on the shirt bigger than the wearer's head), they are different beasts.
There are other OS's (Score:4, Interesting)
Not even MS would do something that doucebaggery on their own
Re:There are other OS's (Score:5, Insightful)
I am an Apple fanboi, born and bred in the soft, comforting womb of the Reality Distortion Field. There is not a single computer or device in my house that was not Designed by Apple in California.
If Apple were to do this on my Mac, or my iPhone, or my iWhateverTheHellElse, I would jump ship like Neo leaving the Matrix*. Apple fanbois are Apple fanbois because we prize elegance and design. Implementing this in OS X would shit on it.
(* Just like in that ONE AND ONLY ONE movie, that had ABSOLUTELY NO sequels... See how good at distorting reality I am?)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Apple fanbois are Apple fanbois because we prize elegance and design.
Yeah, but what if they are elegant, well designed ads?
Very impatiantly waiting... (Score:5, Funny)
.... for an explanation from the apple fan boys why this is so awesome!
Re:Very impatiantly waiting... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not, but since when is the world entirely black and white?
Just look at Michael Jackson.
Parent
They gotta get rid of Google fascist box first (Score:3, Funny)
You mean the same people who paid to software (OS) and hardware combination and didn't ask Apple what the heck that "impossible to change" Google search in OS Default browser will cause a riot against some ads?
What made me more than angry was the first release and later releases of Safari on fscking Windows had Yahoo search option. iPhone/iPod too. Believe or not, Apple is after couple of cents from Google and that is why they include Google by default. Apple, the 1.6 billion profit making company... I unde
Prior Art? (Score:5, Informative)
There were also plenty of "free" dial-up ISPs that required you to click their advertising banner every so often for the connection to stay alive.
Re:Prior Art? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So where is this separation between OS and software on top of the OS? You could say Explorer.exe is just an application on top of the OS. How low does it need to be? Advertisment.dll? Advertisement.sys? Adverisement.Hypervisorkernel?
I claim prior art. (Score:5, Insightful)
http://www.ubersoft.net/comic/hd/2000/12/next-logical-step [ubersoft.net]
http://www.ubersoft.net/comic/hd/2000/12/next-logical-step-ii [ubersoft.net]
Apple, if you really want to go forward with this please have your lawyers shower me with cash.
I for one (Score:3, Insightful)
welcome our advertising-patenting overlords.
Seriously. I hope Jobs all the best in this patent pursuit. If Apple succeeds, then I can avoid occurrences of this amazingly offensive idea by the simple expedient of avoiding Apple operating systems, a course of action I'm already pretty much committed to for ample reasons of Apple's corporate citizenship and customer relations.
As far as I'm concerned, this patent will be the legal equivalent of encysting a noxious parasite for 20 years.
Big Brother advertising... (Score:4, Insightful)
The Big Brother metaphor has finally been dealt its final blow. Big Brother advertising is propaganda. I think a better term for this new patent would be "Jerk Advertising"
I bet Google is pretty ticked off ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh HELL NO! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
..so software that creates unwanted advertising pop-ups is called "malware" and the authors of such are prosecuted...
It's only called malware and prosecuted if it is deceptively marketed. If you offer a software package designed to show people ads and are upfront about that and it is what users want or it offers a benefit in addition to the ads which users feel outweighs the cost of seeing ads then it is not malware at all. For example, lots of Web apps are partly or completely subsidized by advertising and are not malware.
...but then someone decides to write an operating system that does that by design!?
Maybe, but if someone does then you are free to buy it or not and so long as they are not deceptiv
In other words... (Score:5, Insightful)
It is possible Apple wanted to get ahead of the curve and file this patent so that if any company is silly enough to engage in Big Brother advertising, then Apple will get a royalty.
So, best case scenario, Apple is a patent troll?
Fails the novelty test and prior art (Score:3, Interesting)
It's a free country (Score:3, Funny)
But if Apple *does* implement that particular feature, I will join Al Queda. Just sayin'.
Re:Troll protection (Score:5, Interesting)
If you don't intend to put ads in your OS, why would you need to protect yourself from someone else patenting it? No, this is a patent to preempt "free" advertising-supported commercial operating systems by competitors, namely Google.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't that anti-slashdot-zeitgeist though? Patenting something simply so someone else can't do it? IMO, that sounds like a "patent troll," just not in the typical usage of the phrase.
And I have a hard time putting so much faith in Apple, which has done plenty to not deserve said faith, that they would not advertise - if nothing else, their own products. Apple is looking for money. Just like Microsoft and Google.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Confine advertising to OSX, sounds good to me.
It would be funny if the ads kicked in when OS X detected installation on non-Apple hardware.
Parent