

Re: our patent application for an evil advertising scheme [Fake Steve Jobs] - unalone
http://www.fakesteve.net/2009/11/re-our-patent-application-for-an-evil-advertising-scheme.html

======
bartl
Earlier today, I was loading a free, online Flash game in my browser. I also
loaded another web page in another tab, which I put upfront...

The ads that were shown before the start of the game were frozen, for as long
as that tab wasn't in front.

Yes, people, it has already begun.

------
MaysonL
Wait until schools license this patent to force their students to actually
learn! It could revolutionise education.

------
gojomo
This passage by FSJ may highlight the essential difference between Google and
Apple in coming years, even as they offer superficially similar services:

 _Google might make a play for this [replacing cable TV] as well. But they’ll
try to do it without charging money, which will never work. Google’s whole
world revolves around generating revenue through advertising. And they still
think that asking people to pay for something is just a total non-starter
because nobody wants to pay for anything anymore.

Truth is, money is the easiest thing to get people to give up. Much easier
than asking them to give up their time. Nobody wants to watch ads or futz
around with some science project where you have to integrate a bunch of
different things and it never works right. _

That is: Google wants people to pay with their attention and time, which
Google then resells to businesses for cash. Apple wants people to pay in cash,
to save attention and time.

And somewhat relatedly: is there a higher proportion of Apple customers among
people who click Google ads (spending their attention freely), or among people
who buy Google ads (buying the attention of others, or paying to preserve
their own)? I don't have figures but strongly suspect the latter.

~~~
bugs
_I don't have figures but strongly suspect the latter._

You are underestimated the technical ability and drive of apple users, you
must understand that most computer users are normal people (including apple).
Those ads you see on TV for apple are meant for those same people that the
Windows 7 ads are meant for.

On another idea from the quote you took if say apple came out with a TV option
under a monthly fee and at the same time google came out with an alternative
that was free but had an ad every 15 minutes or something along the lines
google, the company who can spend and spend and has the market support, would
come out on top even if they had the lesser service. No one should ever
underestimate the power of free.

~~~
trezor
Just to throw some alternate perspective in here, I could mention how Spotify
offers it's service as a free, ad-supported service and as a paid for service
without advertisement.

I thought the advertisements were annoying enough to pay for premium.

------
manifold
This reminds me very much of a short-story by Stephen Baxter called "Glass
Earth, Inc.", which was set in a society where everyone has to watch a daily
ad-quota, and is monitored to ensure that they do.

