Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Patent Application Reveals Flexible Integration of Advertising Viewing in Video Files
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It's incredible to me how short sighted so many of you are.
The TV shows you love COST MONEY. If Apple can bring these shows to you for FREE in exchange for ads, why the hell would you protest that? Trust me, they're not going to get rid of your option to buy the commercial-free content.
So, you people want FREE tv shows with no ads?? What the hell are you thinking?? I have an idea, how about you just stop receiving a pay check for the work you do 5 days a week, but you keep working. Sound good?
The TV shows you love COST MONEY. If Apple can bring these shows to you for FREE in exchange for ads, why the hell would you protest that? Trust me, they're not going to get rid of your option to buy the commercial-free content.
So, you people want FREE tv shows with no ads?? What the hell are you thinking?? I have an idea, how about you just stop receiving a pay check for the work you do 5 days a week, but you keep working. Sound good?
Oh LORD! So Apple thinks they invented this POS technology? Sorry to say, but lots of other internet sites including ABC and FOX already do this on their video content... Apple sucks, what are they going to do patent this and then try to sue Hulu, ABC, and other sites for using this? FORGET IT.
Complete Trash
Exactly! But at least with Hulu you don't have to pay for it... That is the reason why you would buy the TV shows, so you don't have the commercials!
Exactly! But at least with Hulu you don't have to pay for it... That is the reason why you would buy the TV shows, so you don't have the commercials!
There is nothing in this that mentions paying for the content. Are you reading something else?
Yep, this is what Apple's being doing for a while. Throw a bunch of dubious patent apps as leverage to threaten a possible competitor later. Usually if the competitor is a smaller company, they just give up, because they can't afford to litigate.
Apple has become pure evil.
Ok, so here's where I come to a fork in the road: do I want to pay for DirecTV, where I have a DVR and can run through a TV show in a good amount of time by skipping commercials, or do I want free TV shows via iTunes where I'm forced to watch commercials to get further into the episode?
Right now, I'd pick the former.
You're leaving out the obvious third choice, buy the show with no commercials at all.
I'm thinking this (ads built in) will start applying more once Apple moves into streaming the content on iTunes. We'll have the option to watch free shows with the ads or buy commercial-free.
It's funny how violently aversed we are to being fed commercials in exchange for quality content - Content with writers, producers, actors, art directors, set designers...
I think it comes down to how we're used to consuming content on the 'young internet.' We click, we watch, we expect to be uninterrupted. Anything that breaks our zone of concentration is, for all intents and purposes, a pop-up window.
Before we spent our evenings drooling over our keyboards we sat on the couch and watched hours upon hours of commercials. I guess this was acceptable because - before DVRs came along - watching TV was a passive experience. You were observing a show, not "doing" a show.
Somehow we need to be retrained not to go insane when we click a button and are served an ad. And I admit, I too go insane when I click on a CNN video and am met with the same annoying lapband/antiperspirant/erection pill spot that I've seen 200 times.
Thing is - the content most of us love to watch isn't publicly funded - It's fed by advertisement revenue.
As we ease into the 'video immersed' internet, content providers need to work on somehow changing our expectations so that we accept commercial interruptions as part of our media-consuming habits.
Easier said than done, but either it's that or the entertainment biz dies and we'll just end up watching horrible BBC sitcoms to pass the time.
I think it comes down to how we're used to consuming content on the 'young internet.' We click, we watch, we expect to be uninterrupted. Anything that breaks our zone of concentration is, for all intents and purposes, a pop-up window.
Before we spent our evenings drooling over our keyboards we sat on the couch and watched hours upon hours of commercials. I guess this was acceptable because - before DVRs came along - watching TV was a passive experience. You were observing a show, not "doing" a show.
Somehow we need to be retrained not to go insane when we click a button and are served an ad. And I admit, I too go insane when I click on a CNN video and am met with the same annoying lapband/antiperspirant/erection pill spot that I've seen 200 times.
Thing is - the content most of us love to watch isn't publicly funded - It's fed by advertisement revenue.
As we ease into the 'video immersed' internet, content providers need to work on somehow changing our expectations so that we accept commercial interruptions as part of our media-consuming habits.
Easier said than done, but either it's that or the entertainment biz dies and we'll just end up watching horrible BBC sitcoms to pass the time.
Coming to iTunes in 2014
Apple is filing for a very concerning patent. Apple wants the iTunes platform to be the world's sole media retailer. Apple also wants its iPod, iPhone, and iPad to be the only devices capable of displaying iTunes content.
If this doesn't sound like 1984 and Brave New World to you, I do not know what will.
Apple is filing for a very concerning patent. Apple wants the iTunes platform to be the world's sole media retailer. Apple also wants its iPod, iPhone, and iPad to be the only devices capable of displaying iTunes content.
If this doesn't sound like 1984 and Brave New World to you, I do not know what will.
I doubt this will pass because it has been in common practice by nearly all video content services for sometime now. Plus if it does pass, Apple will never be able to defend it because all people on the other end of the stick will be able to site earlier uses than Apples submission. It almost like trying to put a patent on smilies again.
It seems to me there is a large intersection between sheeple who watch TV shows littered with ads and owners of iDevices. Just sayin...
Welcome to the board, Troll. This is your first macrumors post ever and you're slapping Big Brother on Apple about a commercial ad patent? Crazy talk.Apple is filing for a very concerning patent. Apple wants the iTunes platform to be the world's sole media retailer. Apple also wants its iPod, iPhone, and iPad to be the only devices capable of displaying iTunes content.
If this doesn't sound like 1984 and Brave New World to you, I do not know what will.
If you talk to anyone who KNOWS a thing about business and they will tell you that for a $50B a yr company, Apple offers strikingly FEW products. They not trying to be every business possible -- "SOLE MEDIA RETAILER" ?? Well if you're going to bring that up, I'll ask you: what company in the world wouldn't want to be the SOLE RETAILER of any one product? I don't think, however, that Apple is delusional enough to think this will happen. I think they are happy with #1 and will continue to try and stay there.
Apple used to be down on the Music Selling Totem Pole but slowly moved up to 5th to 4th,... 3rd, 2nd and finally, after a lot of hard work and great value and a wonderful shopping experience became #1. They sold music & books and then moved into games, movies & tv... basically, whatever would play on their exceptional mobile products. What is wrong with that?! It's smart.
Your Orwell-ian spin is trolling at its best. Good luck with the FUD.
You know I remember watch my favorite programs in the day(ST: TNG) with the endless ads and I NEVER liked it. I took it for granted - what could I do? But DVDs or uninterrupted streaming movies from Netflix are a god-send.
Well that was quick! Was it 8:15 into a 43:10 episode (or whatever the patent graphic listed it as)?
I'll be curious to see what Hulu does when their website is accessible from multiple devices (via flash player on all smartphones not named iPhone and many TVs and set top boxes)... I suspect they'll detect the device your on and may limit viewership on this devices, but I don't know. The rumor about Hulu developing an subscription-based iPad version could be interpreted as a "hey, you're going to make us develop a custom version, someone's going to have to pay for it".
Apple is filing for a very concerning patent. Apple wants the iTunes platform to be the world's sole media retailer. Apple also wants its iPod, iPhone, and iPad to be the only devices capable of displaying iTunes content.
If this doesn't sound like 1984 and Brave New World to you, I do not know what will.
Wow, Apple's more into ad-slinging than I realized when I chose
the avatar!
I have a set of DVD's with episodes of one of all-time favourite TV shows from the 1960's. There are no commercials (of course) and each episode is exactly 26 minutes long. 26 minutes of actual viewing in a half-hour show. I wonder what that number is today?
Rich
Rich
