The Golden Gate Bridge was supposed to become toll-free once the construction costs were paid off. It never happened. Somehow, it just never works that way.

I don’t think Apple has any serious intentions of using this patent. Any quick study of Steve Jobs would suggest he’d never go for the idea… and, unlike other companies (Microsoft, cough), Apple has never compromised the experience of using its products with third-party advertising.

As I’m sure you know, companies will, as a matter of practice, patent the inventions of their employees, even when they have no intentions of ever using them.

While I (greatly) respect your advocacy for a world free of DRM, I’d love to see less Apple-bashing on your part.

This post was pretty dumb.

>Wrong.
>Go to your room. No more internet for you tonight.

But no…no…Apple is so good and pure! Jobs is like a digital Jesus!

Freakin hypocrites.

Apple has never compromised the experience of using its products with third-party advertising.

Actually, Apple forces me to have a Google search bar in the top-right area of my Safari browser that uses up space that I want for seeing more of the URL field. You can’t remove it, although you can alter it to change the search engine through hacks. But, I don’t want it there, period. Firefox lets me remove it, but when I try to remove this annoying piece of shit I never use from Safari it carries the entire URL field with it. Thanks a lot, Apple… I’m sure Google really appreciates it, though.

The inventors say the advertising would enable computers and other consumer electronics products to be offered to customers free or at a reduced price. In exchange, recipients would agree to view the ads. If, down the road, users found the advertisements and the attentiveness tests unendurable, they could pay to make the device “ad free” on a temporary or permanent basis.

This is opt-in. If you don’t want it, pay for your device like you already do. If you wanted it and change your mind, pay for the device like you already do.

You mean like Microshaft and their blocking the HDD of the Xbox360? They obviously don’t know how many parents put a chip in the consoles so they don’t have to give scratchable media to their kids to destroy.

This locking people out of hardware is becoming a habit.

You overlook one simple fact: the segment of the population that can’t afford shit is no advertiser’s target demographic. #premisefail

I want to stop to mention that I’m not by any means suggesting that is such a saint that they wouldn’t implement something like this because they’re a saintly company. Merely there are a bunch of practical business implications as to such a move.

If such a business model was to threaten Apple, it would make sense for Apple to patent the IP before anyone else in a defensive move. Let’s say for the evolution of the Apple TV for example. Apple keeps away from ad-supported models typically, but if another company could undercut the Apple TV by offering similar features but by giving the hardware away for free due to a ad-subsidized model with a higher CPM due to 100% accurate ROI calculations, that could easily threaten Apple’s next move.

Apple historically has stayed away from any ad-supported models in order to maintain it’s “pure” user experience which is the cornerstone of it’s brand. I’m not saying it’s impossible, it’s just unlikely.

You have a variant like this insofar as a number of iPhone apps are ad supported. What if this is used instead for free apps as a sop to developers? They could release free apps and this form of ad-support would encourage people to buy the pay versions.

Maybe it’s a pre-emptive patent. Apple has no intent to directly implement it but wants to benefit if someone else tries something like this. Why not profit from others’ mistakes?

For that matter, not every Apple patent actually gets implemented.

So. We don’t know the reason for patenting this nor how or if it’ll be implemented.

And yes, if the mass assumption is correct, it would suck. But to me, the operative word is “if”.

No. You are lying. Note that I am describing what you are doing. I have not called you any names. That would referred to as an ad hominem attack. That is a common logical fallacy. That indicates that whatever you think are are arguing is instantly and automatically invalidated by your own actions. What is inside would be the point, but in this case it is to some extent subsequently unknowable. We understand that you hate somebody or something, probably yourself primarily, that’s how this stuff usually works. It would be more honest for you to just stand in the middle of crowded places and scream “I hate you! I hate you!”

I believe that Cory made a very serious mistake. He validated contempt and hatred, and he needs to take responsibility for the result.

David (Kansas City) Cramer
Born in the USA
Escaped to Canada in 1968

And will Apple sue?

Anyway, the interest of jobs seems to be to scare off every single Apple User on this planet but the few fanboys who dedicate their life using Apple products even if they suck. The Politics on the iPhone AppStore was the first step, their legal action against Psystar the next, now we see the third.

I wonder what will come next.

Greetings, LX

David, Chandler, AZ

Proof we’ve reached the shoe event horizon.

Now Press The Other Button…

I allways thought that meant: Anything in the stage directions for a play should be there for a point…

I.E. why methon the gun if it’s not important….

quote:
But see, that’s the point. We don’t expect anyone will choose the ads. Because, for a very reasonable monthly fee, you’ll be able to eliminate all those ads and get your content free of all interruptions. How reasonable, you say? Well, let’s say that for $30 a month you could watch all the TV you wanted. Let’s say that we can get all the TV networks, or most of them anyway, on board for this. Let’s say that we give you not just this week’s shows but an enormous archive, one that ultimately includes every TV show ever made. Tear out the cable box, stop paying those assholes $100 or $200 a month, and go with us instead.