Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Google Television The Almighty Buck News

Google Patent Proposes $2 Fee To Skip Commercials 434

theodp writes "A day after Google debuted its new Google TV website, the USPTO issued U.S. Patent No. 7,806,329 to the search giant for its Targeted Video Advertising invention. Among other things, the patent proposes having viewers take 5-10 minutes to 'fill out a consumer survey and perhaps to provide additional information such as a mailing address survey before starting the program' to avoid having to watch 10 minutes of commercials. 'As another alternative,' the patent continues, 'the broadcaster may offer the users an option to pay $2 (such as through a micro-payment system, such as GBuy) to exchange for skipping all commercials.' More from the patent: 'The system may allow a user to skip all of the promotions that they want to skip, but may also require the user to fully watch at least four promotions before the program will continue. Likewise, the system may require the user to follow activities that generate a certain amount of advertising revenue or advertising points (e.g., that may correspond directly or indirectly to advertising revenues) before the program will continue.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Patent Proposes $2 Fee To Skip Commercials

Comments Filter:
  • Greed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by iONiUM ( 530420 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2010 @11:33AM (#33794794) Journal

    To me, at this point, commercials are greed. We already pay subscription (cable or otherwise), and most movies/TV shows use product placement among other things to supplement the cost. What really gets me is that now movies have 10 minutes of commercials before them. Did I really just pay $10 to watch 10 minutes of commercials before the 15 minutes of movie trailers? It's odd that only a few years ago, the movie/theatre business made a nice profit without having these commercials, yet now they cannot live without them.

    I hope in time commercial-less media is the norm.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I hope in time commercial-less media is the norm.

      I guess you haven't seen Demolition Man, have you?

      • Not in a while, but I did watch "The Glades" earlier this week and noticed that every computer monitor (including laptop lids) has a huge Windows logo. It's a shame that they don't have Linux logos, as they've been caught using a GNOME desktop. [omgubuntu.co.uk]

    • Re:Greed (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MozeeToby ( 1163751 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2010 @11:42AM (#33794934)

      What really gets me is that now movies have 10 minutes of commercials before them. Did I really just pay $10 to watch 10 minutes of commercials before the 15 minutes of movie trailers?

      Go somewhere else then, seriously. Most often it's the small, independent, or even budget theaters that actual treat their patrons nicely. Even in the relatively small town I live in there is at least one budget theater that promises no commercials, less than 10 minutes of previews, and (as they love to point out as often as possible) real butter on the popcorn. And the manager actually knows the regulars, gives out free tickets and popcorn before the start of many movies, apologizes in person if something is wrong, and actually tries to make the whole experience enjoyable. And all for less than half the price of going to one of the big name theaters. Ok, sure, you won't get to see new releases opening weekend, but how often can you really not wait an extra month or two before you see a movie?

      • Alamo Drafthouse (Score:5, Informative)

        by shawnmchorse ( 442605 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2010 @11:48AM (#33795022) Homepage

        Case in point: The Alamo Drafthouse [drafthouse.com]. They play first run movies (as well as cult films and other such), serve food and alcohol, and have actual pre-show video entertainment (not commercials). If a movie isn't playing at the Drafthouse, I generally don't bother going. It's not worth putting up with general obnoxiousness of the large corporate theater chains like Cinemark.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Jawnn ( 445279 )

          Case in point: The Alamo Drafthouse [drafthouse.com]. They play first run movies (as well as cult films and other such), serve food and alcohol, and have actual pre-show video entertainment (not commercials). If a movie isn't playing at the Drafthouse, I generally don't bother going. It's not worth putting up with general obnoxiousness of the large corporate theater chains like Cinemark.

          Good point. Portland, OR has the McMenamin's establishments that operate in a very similar manner. I reckon that most major cities have something similar. The clientele is more polite (don't insist on texting and annoying every patron behind them) , the menu is far superior, and there's good beer. What's not to like?
          Even the small town I lived in a few years ago had a small, locally owned theater that offered an experience that was superior in every way to the multiplex chains that have so fucked up the ci

      • Re:Greed (Score:5, Insightful)

        by h4rm0ny ( 722443 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2010 @12:19PM (#33795464) Journal
        Not where I live in the UK. Here the small independent cinemas are so squeezed by the big chains that they put on an absurd amount of adverts before the film. After carefully calculating whether or not my friend and I would have time to see a movie before I had to get back for a meeting, I found that there were over half an hour of adverts and trailers before a one and a half-hour film. Needless to say, I wasn't pleased. I'd allowed some leeway but I hadn't expected forty-minutes. And I don't even mind the trailers usually as I like to see them, but this was mainly car ads. I'm unlikely to go there again.

        I think at this point, society is seriously messed up. If we have to pay to avoid being monitored and hit with sales pitches, then the world of advertising must be either so desparate or so avaricious, that it's lost all reason. It's tantamount to a protection racket where people pay not to be hassled. And you'd think that if you were an advertiser, your target audience would be the ones that could afford not to see your ads, no?

        I don't think it's even the advertising companies that are to blame. Well they are, because they pay for all this, but ultimately they're just driven by the investors with quarterly whips to increase profits higher and higher. It's the market analysts (or whatever they're called these days) who keep offering them this magic ticket whereby the wonderful technique of stripping everyone of the last dregs of their privacy, will connect each seller with an untapped market of people who desparately want their product. They mine every last drop of data they can from us and then try to flog their services to the product manufacturers saying "look - we know who'll buy your goods. Pay ussssss."

        Advertising long since stopped being about companies trying to make money off the public. Advertising is now about advertisers trying to make money off the companies.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by phantomfive ( 622387 )

          I think at this point, society is seriously messed up.

          lol how do you know when your life is too good? When you think advertising before you get entertained means society is seriously messed up.

          Seriously, this is messed up society [indiatalkies.com], and so is this [bilerico.com], but having your entertainment delayed is not.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward

            Nothing like a self-righteous lecture to make you feel better, huh?

      • The studios get between 80 and 90% of the admission charge for first run movies for the first 2 weeks of the engagement. The ratio reverses beginning in the 3rd week.

        I'm not saying it's in the direct interest of the studios to churn out trash with no "legs", but I am saying that churning out trash with no "legs" really hurts the bottom line of the exhibitors.

        I was a cinema manager while the massive commercial reel became the norm, and in order to protect the exhibitors' bottom line, every major chain compl

    • Re:Greed (Score:4, Insightful)

      by the_fat_kid ( 1094399 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2010 @11:42AM (#33794938)

      do they want me to get things from bit torrent?
      I haven't had cable television in over a year. I got tired of all the infomercial crap.
      I don't think that I will be paying for a show with comercials.
      I think that it will be a cold day in hell that I pay $2 extra for one without.
      Just how much do they think that television is worth?
      Not gonna do it. no thanks.
      now you will have to excuse me, I have some Dexter to watch...

    • Did you inquire what a movie ticket would cost for a showing without ads or trailers? Probably more than $10.

      "It's odd that only a few years ago, the movie/theatre business made a nice profit without having these commercials, yet now they cannot live without them."

      Nothing ever changes, never. Costs never go up. Revenue never goes down. There are no alternative to a movie theater and never will be.

      • Re:Greed (Score:5, Informative)

        by uniquename72 ( 1169497 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2010 @12:19PM (#33795482)
        I managed a movie theater for a few years in the '90s. It cost about $60 to show a movie -- primarily in utilities and employee costs. Tickets were $5 a piece for an adult, but most of that went to the studios. So if 12 people came to a movie and all bought something at the concession stand (which made about $5 on average per person), we broke even. Of course, since most of the shows had about 125 people in them, it was a money-making machine. The vast majority of our money came from selling overpriced popcorn and soda.

        Today, the theaters themselves are the ones who get paid off of pre-movie advertising -- that's on top of vast mark-ups on concession items. Meanwhile, ticket costs have tripled in the last 15 years, and movie studios are making record profits [torrentfreak.com] -- particularly given that there are additional revenue streams like product placement, DVD sales/rental, fees from TV, etc.

        So no, ticket costs without showing ads would certainly not be more that $10. In fact, pre-movie ads are almost entirely unrelated to ticket prices.
        • Re:Greed (Score:5, Interesting)

          by TheGratefulNet ( 143330 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2010 @12:40PM (#33795754)

          I'm over 40 and have not been to a movie theater in probably 5 years. maybe even more.

          I would not even weep if all the movie 'theaters' went out of business tomorrow.

          when businesses get that greedy and evil, the sooner they fade away the better.

          the unpleasantness of being in the theater and being overcharged at every step turns me off so I choose not to go there.

          I rent movies at home all the time. 1000% better experience. the fact that my screen is 32" wide does not bother me in the least! any movie that -needs- a big scream and jet plane level sound is too weak on its content to hold my interest for very long, anyway. being in the comfort of home trumps all 'benefits' of what the theaters give.

          let this model die. it had a good run but its not needed anymore.

    • Re:Greed (Score:4, Informative)

      by takowl ( 905807 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2010 @11:52AM (#33795084)

      I hope in time commercial-less media is the norm.

      In glorious soviet UK, we have four major TV channels [bbc.co.uk] (and minor channels, national and local radio stations) without commercials. This costs £145 per year [tvlicensing.co.uk] ($230, or ~$20 per month). In fact, the radio channels and website can be used for free, you pay if you have a TV (although I wonder if this will change in the future).

      • by EdZ ( 755139 )
        Technically, you're only supposed to be watching the live-streaming version of the web-based iplayer if you pay the TV license. Stored shows are fine though. It's rather unfortunate that the BBC has started turning unpleasantly closed though: the proprietary nature of the the download service and encryption of the streaming service makes it hard to watch without windows and flash. Then there's the continual slashing of the HD channel bitrate (and the laughable and demonstrably incorrect claims that it 'look
    • Not entirely, the problem is that there's a cable/satellite provider, then there's the actual channels themselves. The problem is that when you get cable, you're paying the provider for the cable, but they're not passing all the money necessary to provide the content back to the channel.

      The ads are what make up the difference. Which is why channels which don't have commercials end up being completely commercial as in HSN, pledge drives as in PBS or subscription based as in HBO.

      It's a bit like sports t
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by maxume ( 22995 )

        There are plenty of commercials on PBS, they just happen to be between programs, rather than interrupting them.

      • It's stuff like this that causes me to torrent TV shows. I play plenty for TV, including a cable subscription, but I'm not going to spend 60 minutes watching 42 minutes of content with 18 minutes of advertising (30% advertising time!), as well as watching it when they want me to. Just isn't going to happen. I watch live TV for background noise nowadays, when I don't care in particular what I'm going to watch, or if I feel like something not on my download list. And for those movies that have some compel

    • greed runs deep.

      take a made-for-tv sitcom. it gets fully paid for (at least it had to in the old days) by BEING on tv that one time. any money over that is gravy. what do they do, now? they release that same content on dvd and charge you again.

      when I see people post deals on the various coupons' sites and say 'wow, such and such a tv show is being released on dvd for $x off!' I fail to get excited and, in fact, get angry. the 'gimme generation' fails to see what they are funding and more importantly, w

  • by elrous0 ( 869638 ) * on Tuesday October 05, 2010 @11:34AM (#33794810)
    The fast forward button on my DVR was one of the last bits of freedom I had, to skip some guy screaming at me about some car/cereal/appliance that I just *HAVE* to buy. I guess Google TV will forgo "Fast Forward" for a "Pay Us Money Not To Have To Watch These Annoying Commercials" button. Ain't technological progress grand?
    • by mikael_j ( 106439 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2010 @11:44AM (#33794966)

      My freedom is in the form of pirated TV shows and movies, if you won't let me pay for and download them (I'm in Sweden and the choices for US TV shows are pretty much nill) legally then I'll just get them for free without commercials. I'm not waiting several months just for the privilege of commercials and subtitles made by some college student who doesn't understand what he or she is translating...

      • They still have commercials in the form of product placement; you're not getting anything for free by bit torrenting.
    • For a device that gently applies pressure to the users throat, and increases it the more he holds down FF.

    • Oh, they'll still have a fast forward button, but you have to enter your credit card number every time you want to use it.

    • What they've done is poison any reason to have the service and offer incentive to pirate the programming. I watch very little TV now since it's become an ad infested crapfest. Subscription TV is just as bad, if not worse than broadcast TV. I've totally quit listening to the radio for the same reason.
  • That about sums it up. Who have they been hiring lately?

    I can only hope they're trying to patent this so no one else can do it, then they just sit on it never using it.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by gstoddart ( 321705 )

      That about sums it up. Who have they been hiring lately?

      I can only hope they're trying to patent this so no one else can do it, then they just sit on it never using it.

      Yeah, no kidding. Fill out a survey before I can watch TV? Pay them for the privilege to not watch commercials? Generate a certain amount of ad revenue?

      My PVR already allows me to do this for free. I can guarantee that as soon as my TV watching will enforce that I watch commercials or pay to skip them, I will simply cancel my TV subscript

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by geekoid ( 135745 )

      Evil? really? yeah, here is an option, you don't have to do it but if it adds value for you then you can opt in.

      Yeah, freaking evil~

    • by flooey ( 695860 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2010 @02:27PM (#33797338)
      Yeah, I sure hope none of the websites I frequent would ever have a system by which I could give them some money to have the advertising removed. That would be awful!
  • by L3370 ( 1421413 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2010 @11:37AM (#33794864)

    We can still go grab a beer and fix a sandwich up during commercials. Don't freak out. Just do something else.
    • by mark-t ( 151149 ) <markt@NoSPaM.nerdflat.com> on Tuesday October 05, 2010 @11:41AM (#33794926) Journal
      Right.... until they start adding commercials to books as electronic readers start becoming more mainstream. You won't be able to turn the page until you sit through this 15 second commercial that the publisher figures might interest you based on the content of the book.
    • Remember...

      We can still go grab a beer and fix a sandwich up during commercials. Don't freak out. Just do something else.

      Not really - from the summary it sounds like it actually requires some interaction from the user. Can't answer a question about the product it just showed you an ad for? That's okay, I'm sure they'll be happy to show it to you again so you can pass the required quiz before watching your show.

      • by mark-t ( 151149 )

        Wow... so they want to turn commercials into something resembling a pop quiz from high school?

        Unless every commercial is specifically tailored to each and every individual so that the person viewing it has enough interest in the product that they would be *guaranteed* to pay attention to it, that has about as much chance of succeeding as promoting that people stop having sex so that the population doesn't keep growing.

    • Give it a try. You won't believe the difference it makes.

    • by tixxit ( 1107127 )
      For now. Who knows, may be a certain amount of commercials watched per hour of TV will be required in the future. With current tech (DVR/on-demand TV, facial recognition, eye tracking, etc.) and legal precedences, it really isn't as far out as it seems. "You want to get up and get a beer? That's OK, we'll just pause this commercial for you until we detect that we have your attention again."
  • Better idea (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Pojut ( 1027544 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2010 @11:38AM (#33794878) Homepage

    Google is the "king" of targeted ads...so why not do the same thing with Google TV? If I'm watching an episode of Aqua Teen Hunger Force, I obviously will not give a shit about life insurance...but a video game? Sure. I'll sit through an advertisement for that. Unless it's one of those lame Gamestop machinima commercials...

    This seems like a strange direction for Google to take...what with their algorithms used for serving up ads online, one would think they would utilize something similar for their TV service...I despise advertisements, but I'll tolerate them if it's relevant to what I'm watching.

    • Remember, if they have to advertise on TV, it probably sucks.

    • by mark-t ( 151149 )
      Because even their "targetted" ads aren't 100% reliable... in fact, not even close. I perhaps am perhaps at most interested in maybe 1% of the ads that google currently throws at me.... which means that they'd just have to have at least a hundred times as many ads to compensate, which would bore the hell out of me and I would just not use the service at all.
    • Re:Better idea (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Jaqenn ( 996058 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2010 @12:24PM (#33795554)
      Perhaps I undervalue my security and privacy, but I keep hoping for an increase in the targeted advertising I experience.

      I don't want to refinance my house. I don't want to find relationships online. I don't want to find old classmates. I don't want to earn money by signing up for free trials. Even though I don't want these things, I see these ads a lot.

      I like videogames and boardgames. I like anime. I like paintball. I like cooking. I already go out of my way to learn about new products and discounts in these areas.

      I would love to surrender information about my interests in order to replace the ads I don't care about with ads that I do care about. I'm fine with the idea that they need to make money somehow, and I'm willing to sell them my attention if they talk to me about products that I agree to myself, 'Yeah, I might have wanted that'. Give me an internet radio style thumbs-up / thumbs-down button for the ads, including a 'Never show me an ad for this product again'.
  • OMG (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DoofusOfDeath ( 636671 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2010 @11:38AM (#33794880)

    If there was ever a situation that deserved writing scripts that control a video player, this is it.

    Script #1: Fill in the customer survery with bogus-but-valid-looking info.

    Script #2: During commercials, cut off the video player's access to the screen and audio output, and instead have the computer present either silence or some alternative form of entertainment (music, etc.)

  • I'd pay $2 to skip all commercials, forever.
    • Too bad it's a $2 "per program" leeching, and not a $2 charge when you first sign-up.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by kidgenius ( 704962 )
        How much is a pay-per-episode of a TV show on iTunes? Isn't it like $1.99? You get to skip all of the commercials, right? Isn't that the equivalent of $2/episode? This isn't that outrageous.
        • by sp332 ( 781207 )

          One hour of TV programming is 40 minutes of content and 20 minutes of ads. If Google charges $2/10 minutes of ads, its actually twice the price per episode.

  • I'm not going to pay ANYTHING to skip the commercials. I use my DVR to record programs, then watch them "later" (at least 30 minutes later) so that I can fast forward past the commercials.

    Being *forced* to sit through advertising (I'm looking at the websites that MAKE you watch a video before you see content -- especially Discovery.com -- where you get a 1-2 minute clip then a 30 second commercial) makes me not want the product being advertised. They actually cause me to NOT buy or use the service..

    • >>I use my DVR to record programs, then watch them "later" (at least 30 minutes later)

      Actually, if there's 22 minutes of commercials per hour, you only have to wait 11 minutes before starting your 30-minute program to ensure you can skip all the commercials. Actually, seeing as some of those 11 minutes of commercials will come right at the end of the 30-minute segment, you could start a bit earlier.

      If I can start watching Caprica 38 minutes sooner (1-hour show), then I'll do it! :)

  • by eldavojohn ( 898314 ) * <eldavojohn&gmail,com> on Tuesday October 05, 2010 @11:40AM (#33794906) Journal
    From reading the paragraph in context, it seems like Google was just showing an example of how a broadcaster or content provider could become indifferent to how their broadcasting revenue is generated. The patent gives three examples for making up $1-$2 of advertising revenue on a one hour program for each viewer. It could be done through commercials as traditionally is done, by survey or even at a direct charge to the viewer. I think it's important to note that the $2 figure doesn't seem to be set in stone, it's more an example of how a broadcaster who demands $2 in advertising revenue per viewer could recoup or mitigate those costs.

    The real question is: how is this any different than someone forking over a couple bucks to watch the latest Futurama episode on iTunes?

    You can call it "skipping commercials" or you can call it "selling the right to view content once" or whatever the hell you want. But it all comes down to you reimbursing the broadcasters for their content--which has traditionally been done through advertising. I'm surprised this is invoking so much ire from the Slashdot crowd.
    • I think it's important to note that the $2 figure doesn't seem to be set in stone, it's more an example of how a broadcaster who demands $2 in advertising revenue per viewer could recoup or mitigate those costs.

      It is also important to note that nobody has ever had a guarantee that their advertising would reach people or be watched. It represents a potential audience, but has never been a guarantee -- it certainly doesn't confer an obligation to me.

      The day that commercials become an obligation is the day

    • I will do my level best to avoid any service which attempts to show me commercials. Right now I'm having off and on problems viewing Youtube in Chrome due to ad-blocking and the like (seems to work every time I clear the cache and such.) With that said, this just doesn't seem worth being upset about.

      I think it is a foregone conclusion that sooner or later the majority of programming will not even be delivered via broadcast (whether OTA or down a wire, as in CATV or possible next-generation replacements whic

  • I think it's pretty telling that a company that is considered to employ such brilliance and be on the technological forefront in the end exists simply to peddle adverts. Surely there are better uses of the resources.
    • by geekoid ( 135745 )

      Are you completely unaware of all the other stuff the use the money they get from advertising for? The programs? the RnD?

      They exist BECAUSE they peddle adverts.

  • Patent? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by joeyblades ( 785896 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2010 @11:42AM (#33794942)
    I'm not sure why a strategy is considered an invention... moreover, a strategy that has been used for a while by FOX.
  • Is $2 too much? (Score:5, Informative)

    by yuna49 ( 905461 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2010 @11:42AM (#33794944)

    I looked at current advertising costs [tvb.org] to see whether $2/episode is justified. Right now advertisers pay about 3.3 cents to put an ad in the face of a 25-54 year-old adult during a prime-time show. In an hour-long show, there are about sixteen minutes of non-program material, though some of that is promotions for other shows and local advertising. Let's say that ten minutes of every prime-time hour includes national advertising. That means advertisers are willing pay about thirty cents per show; two dollars seems like gouging in comparison.

    • $2 is too much because it's $2 for every show. Even $2 per day will suck $730 out of your pocket. I don't pay that much for cable TV.

      Add up all the shows you watch in your household, and you could easily spend several thousand dollars a year to get rid of commercials. Ridiculous! Just get up and go to the bathroom, grab a sandwich or drink, of mute the TV and talk to a live person during commercials.

      See the world's largest pump project being build. http://www.faribanksmorseispumped.com/ [faribanksm...pumped.com]

    • Commercials aren't 60 seconds long. Try doubling that cost to at least $0.66/hour, assuming your other numbers are correct.

      Actually, I think there's more like 22 minutes of advertising time per hour = 44 x 30sec commercials = 44 * $0.033 = $1.45/hour. That's not so far off their $2.

      However, I am taking the other approach: I'm going to patent boycotting Google TV, and/or any other medium where ads are blocked. I already avoid DVD's with unskippable content, by ripping them for my AppleTV first... I paid

  • I'd gladly pay a couple of bucks to watch TV without commercials. I could use a variety of technological solutions to remove the commercials, but I'd rather pay a small sum, avoid the commercials, and still financially support the programs I enjoy.

  • ... like Google is actually bending to the whim of the content providers, rather than forcing this on users themselves. After all, YouTube is free, and has ads at the bottom of the video (which you can click to remove), as well as the occasional 10 second ad before the main event. I don't believe this is *Google* being "evil"!

    After all, wasn't it the music industry that forced Apple in to adopting DRM..? (or is that just what Apple would have us believe?)

    An ideal would be:

    • This broadcast is free! But you'll
  • by zerofoo ( 262795 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2010 @11:49AM (#33795042)

    How about Google shares their ad revenue with me if I agree to watch the commercials?

    I've been told many times that the show is not the product - the viewers are the product. Fine, if I allow Google to show me the ads using MY bandwidth, why not give me a cut of the ad revenue?


  • A business process, like pure math, and like pure software is not patentable in many jurisdictions. What is being described here is a BUSINESS PROCESS, and lacks key patentability criteria under current patent law.

    Whoever came up with this patent doesn't understand IP.

    It probably won't get approved.

    It certainly won't get approved world-wide.

    • by blueg3 ( 192743 )

      It's not a business process that they got a patent for, it's the technological means for one method of implementing such a business practice. The same practice, accomplished by means other than what the patent describes, would be non-infringing.

    • The Supreme Court was unwilling to categorically exclude business methods from patent eligibility in Bilski v. Kappos. Each such method has to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea or a patent-eligible method.

    • Look up Business Methods. I would paste the link, but I can't past into a textbox on /. for some reason.

  • This sounds like having to sit through a sales pitch at a vacation resort to get free lodging for a night. Thank goodness for the 30 second skip on my TiVO.

  • No, no, and hell no. I'll keep using the Usenet channel. Thanks anyway, google.

    • by geekoid ( 135745 )

      Then you are no ones customer so why would the give a shit about what you think? You only want entertainment for free.

    1. Adblock plus
    2. NoScript
    3. Completely fake "survey" information
    4. If all the above fail, how about I just leave the room for 10 minutes, or minimize that window/switch to another tab and mute the sound for 10 minutes?
    5. One word: Torrent
    6. Can't find a torrent of it? I probably don't need to be watching it then.

    In short: Screw you Google, and everyone else who keeps "monitizing" the living fuck out of everything. When I watched the movie Idiocracy, I only laughed for the first couple minutes. Then I got a stone-cold feel

    • by geekoid ( 135745 )

      So people who work to make entertainment shouldn't get paid? People who provide a service shouldn't make money?

      That's a pretty stupid argument to make about a private company.

  • What will happen is that a lot of people will naturally pay the $2 up front to avoid seeing the commercials. The advertisers will notice that hardly anybody is seeing their commercials and so will not be willing to pay as much to subsidize the programs that people who aren't paying for commercial free programming are watching, so the cost of programming goes up. Ultimately, the $2 fee will end up being absorbed right into the standard cost of the service, under the guise of "saving you money" and everybo
  • this one feature makes it totally worth any hassle in setting it up. The payback in not wasting my time watching commercials is 100 fold.
  • Give the consumers the option to pay to remove the commercials.

    I like it.

  • Name: Nodata Mining , Income: none , Occupation: other , Interests: Other, Location: Antarctica, Phone number: 8675309
  • My simple life (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Andy Smith ( 55346 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2010 @12:39PM (#33795734)

    I hate the logos that TV stations put in the corner of the screen throughout shows. So I stopped watching TV three years ago.

    The high number of adverts in each show was becoming a problem, but the logos annoyed me more. Now, since I've stopped watching TV because of the logos, the adverts don't bother me. Funny that.

    When it gets to the point that hour-long shows have half-an-hour of interactive adverts that you MUST watch or they play again, that won't bother me. Because I still won't be watching TV.

    I have so much more time to be productive since I quit the tube.

COMPASS [for the CDC-6000 series] is the sort of assembler one expects from a corporation whose president codes in octal. -- J.N. Gray