Apple Wouldn’t Risk Its Cool Over an Ad Gimmick, Would It?

Most people probably don't care. They still watch ads online and with their TV shows. I work in an office building that is completely owned by my employer, and there are little screens in the elevator that show ads all day. You walk into the elevator, and instantly any conversation you were having stops, and people stare at the ads. It is mind-blowing that the ads exist, and mind-blowing how interested people are in them.

(The ads are sometimes even for our competitors! WTF!?)

If anyone has been watching the new Apple over the past decade, it is obvious that they are not interested creating new market areas, but rather coming late to an established areas and beating the competition.

If Apple launches an ad-supported device, I would bet it will only be in response to a move into that area from Google or MS, after learning from their mistakes (just as they learned from the many problems of Windows-based smartphones).

The fact that a big company has filed a patent doesn't necessarily mean that they're going to make a product. Usually it means that they care about that area in general and need some amount of patent "presence", some asset that they can take into negotiations to give them a bit of weight.

The television networks have not accepted a viable internet distribution system. Until that happens, Apple and others will continue developing treats to entice them.

Consider the recording industry. Apple had to use DRM that made purchases feel like the familiar single copy sale of the industry. Eventually the music industry got over that and adapted to unlocked sales.

The television networks or studios will be happier with ads in their internet distributed product, since it is how they work. Maybe they will get over it with time and accept a model that people prefer, or maybe people will prefer to serve the advertisers instead of paying for the content. Time will tell.

Apple already lost its "cool" a while ago.

Openness of iPhone Development (or lack thereof). 'nuff said.

While it would seem unlikely for Apple to implement a scheme like this for ad-subsidized computers, it does seem like something they would do for the music industry. I can see ad-supported itunes store content; watch this 30 second ad, and then you get to listen to the song.

Apple hasn't filed the patent to implement it, but to stop others from doing so. It damages the Apple brand if third-party crapware like that mentioned in the patent shows up on the Mac, and they just want another tool in their pockets to get rid of it if they ever need to.

Simple answer: no. If they use this for anything, I imagine it'll be for something similar to the iPhone, but without another company (like AT&T) backing them up financially. This allows Apple to sell something at a low price but still be financially viable.

My guess: This is for the Apple Tablet. Either pay for subscriptions, or view ads. And, since it's Apple, I'm going to guess that all ads must go through an ad approval process.

This was covered by Patently Apple a few weeks ago. NY Times is late to the party. To me this is to prevent Google's Chrome OS from being profitable.

How do we know this technology isn't targeted for the Apple Media-Industry-Saving Tablet Device? Is this how Steve plans to save the newspaper biz?

Maybe they're going to do the right thing and use the patent to keep other idiots from ruining the "mac experience" with garbage like this.

Looking forward to the mods and jailbreaks for cheap subsidized Apple hardware.

Large companies have patents for multitudes of ideas that they don't actually implement. Getting worked up over patent filings like this is a waste of energy, since it's rare that anything comes of it.

If you look at the article, it mentions that the ad enabled devices are optional and that too on a lower price. Now a person who cannot afford an iPhone may opt for the ad enabled device and may make it through the price barrier own a shiny new iPhone.