Steve Jobs' Idea for Ad-Supported Operating Systems Was Nearly a Reality

Discussion in ' News Discussion' started by MacRumors, Apr 26, 2012.

  1. MacRumors macrumors bot


    Apr 12, 2001

    Back in late 2009, an Apple patent application surfaced showing that the company had explored ad-supported operating systems, with the user receiving free or discounted goods or services in exchange for viewing the advertisements. The patent application, which was filed in 2008 and shows ad integration in Mac OS X, was notable for listing Steve Jobs as the lead inventor.


    As Ken Segall reveals in his new book, Insanely Simple: The Obsession That Drives Apple's Success, the idea did indeed belong to Jobs, although he initially considered implementing it for the 1999 release of Mac OS 9.
    Jobs envisioned the ad-supported version of Mac OS 9 displaying a 60-second commercial from a "premium" company at startup, with the ads occasionally being automatically swapped out for new ones over the Internet. He also visualized the use of contextually relevant ads, such as an Epson printer ink ad being displayed when the user's printer was reporting that it was low on ink.

    Segall was not in favor of the idea, but left that meeting under the impression that Apple was going to proceed with it as the TBWA\Chiat\Day team begin thinking about the premium companies it could target for high-quality advertising. But for whatever reason, Jobs and Apple ultimately decided to scrap the idea.

    But while the genesis of the idea indeed appears to lie with Jobs, it is still unclear why Apple decided nine years later to file for a patent on the idea, whether it was due to a serious reconsideration of the idea or merely a tying up of loose ends that saw the company attempting to protect one of Jobs' ideas that had already been discarded.

    Article Link: Steve Jobs' Idea for Ad-Supported Operating Systems Was Nearly a Reality
  2. LostSoul80 macrumors 68020


    Jan 25, 2009
  3. AQUADock, Apr 26, 2012
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2012

    AQUADock macrumors 65816


    Mar 20, 2011
    Glad it didn't become a reality, and I hope it stays that way.
  4. whooleytoo macrumors 604


    Aug 2, 2002
    Cork, Ireland.
    Yuck. Although if it were released today, the ad mechanism would probably be hacked and disabled within weeks if not days, so it wouldn't make much difference.

    By comparison now, we get a hell of a better OS for under 30 euros, without adverts. I know which one I'd pick.
  5. deannnnn macrumors 68020


    Jun 4, 2007
    New York City & South Florida
    I mean, it makes complete business sense as to why this would exist, and therefore it's technically a good idea... but thank God it doesn't.
  6. thekeyring macrumors 68040

    Jan 5, 2012
    I'm sure Steve Jobs could have sold it to us... but it seems like a price to pay, having ads.

    They don't want to make a £500 MacBook because they'd rather make good products that cost more, yet this was considered? A crapper version of Mac OS 9 / 10 just to support people unwilling to spend $99?

    Then again, they did release the Mac Mini as a slimmed-down Mac for £500.
  7. dethmaShine macrumors 68000

    Apr 13, 2010
    Into the lungs of Hell
    Oh my God.

    I think Apple should sell this patent to Google. They are the ones who deserve it.
  8. Flood123, Apr 26, 2012
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2012

    Flood123 macrumors 6502a


    Mar 28, 2009
    Living Stateside
    I would much rather pay $99 for an operating system than be faced with advertisements all the time. Thank you for not implementing this apple. It would have been supremely annoying.

    In the spirit of 100% transparency I did gloss over this part (my bad):
    "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."
  9. roadbloc macrumors G3


    Aug 24, 2009
    Agreed. I would not use an OS littered with ads. I'd rather pay.
  10. decimortis macrumors 6502a


    Aug 28, 2007
    In 1999 that implementation could have been the death knell of Apple.
    Not to mention all the beautiful animated GIF ads we would have seen.

  11. whooleytoo macrumors 604


    Aug 2, 2002
    Cork, Ireland.

    You've given me an idea. I think I'll go out and patent ever objectionable feature I can think of - not to make money, but to prevent them ever seeing the light of day!
  12. summitRun macrumors regular

    Aug 28, 2011
    Great minds often come up with non-sensical ideas because their brains never fully shut off...
  13. topmounter, Apr 26, 2012
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2012

    topmounter macrumors 68020


    Jun 18, 2009
    FEMA Region VIII
    The last thing I want is to have to buy is a Tivo for my Mac.
  14. decimortis macrumors 6502a


    Aug 28, 2007
    I would totally buy a car that had a 50% discount but slammed on the breaks every 60 seconds whilst playing elevator music.

  15. Small White Car macrumors G4

    Small White Car

    Aug 29, 2006
    Washington DC
    For a free OS...meh.

    But if they wanted to do this for some sort of half-priced hardware...well that has merit. I don't they can make that much money off of ads, though, so I don't think it would ever work.

    And I would certainly never do it, regardless. I'm just saying, if there was a $300 Mac Mini that played ads, there are certainly folks out there who would buy that.
  16. imgonephishin macrumors regular

    Jan 3, 2003
    While I completely agree about my willingness to pay to avoid ads, we don't know what options Apple was considering. It's entirely possible that they were planning to always offer this side-by-side with the standard OS. So, people who want to avoid ads can pay up front, but people with less money who have a willingness to watch ads could do that--essentially it would just expand their potential user base, much like the thousands of iOS apps that have free versions with ads right next to a pay version without ads for a few bucks.

    But yeah, ads on my OS would annoy the hell out of me, but for those it wouldn't, more power to them.
  17. Rocketman macrumors 603


    Eudora does that. I forget what year they started it.
  18. Westyfield2 macrumors 6502a

    Jun 9, 2009
    Bath, UK.
    The last thing I want is the riff raff owning Macs ;).
  19. iDemiurge macrumors 6502


    Feb 7, 2011
    I cannot think of anything that sucks more than this.
  20. jwsmiths macrumors member

    Jul 5, 2006
    Have to remember the business climate of 1999, companies like NetZero were flourish with ad-driven services, Apple probably figured it would be easy to pick up some extra cash following that model and drag people into the future since when their computer didn't run OS 9 as well as it had run OS 8 and they liked the extra features that it brought they would look for a new Mac which would also include OS 9 without ads as a bonus. Win-win.
  21. bdavis89 macrumors regular

    Sep 10, 2009
    When was ChromeOS announced? This may very well be the reason why they patented it. Advertising is Google's bread and butter, implementing ads into an OS is something maybe Apple thought Google would try in ChromeOS.
  22. GuitarDTO macrumors 6502a

    Feb 16, 2011
    Ads are so annoying. Our entire life is littered with them. Mail...cold calls/telemarketing, our phone apps, email, billboards. Our web useage is being tracked and data sold to advertisers... there have been proposals to put ads inside airplanes on the seats, and now built into our computer OS? Sigh.

  23. nagromme macrumors G5


    May 2, 2002
    He once said Apple is most proud of the things they didn’t ship.

    I’ve never felt more proud of Apple than I do today :eek:
  24. Shrink macrumors G3


    Feb 26, 2011
    New England, USA
    Correct ^^^

    The next thing you know the boobs would want a dumbed down, easy to use, no-tech-knowledge-required system. :rolleyes: :D

    As for ads...I'd rather pay. Better yet, as mentioned in earlier posts...just hang on to that patent, put it in a vault, and lose the key.:)
  25. RMo macrumors 65816


    Aug 7, 2007
    Iowa, USA
    And so you could have done just that (paid $99), as the article states, and enjoy your desired experience. What's the problem?

Share This Page

87 April 26, 2012