Microsoft Patent Monetizes Your TV Remote 234
theodp writes "Microsoft, reports GeekWire, is seeking a patent on monetizing the buttons of your TV remote. In its application for a patent on 'Control-based Content Pricing,' Microsoft explains how one can jack up the cable bill of those who dare fast-forward past a diaper commercial or replay a sports highlight. From the patent application: 'If a user initiates a navigation control input to advance past (e.g., skip over) an advertisement, the cost of a requested on-demand movie may be increased. Similarly, if a user initiates a replay of a sporting event, the user may be charged for the replay control input and for each subsequent view control input.'"
well fuck you! (Score:3, Insightful)
and you realy expect people dont find ways to steal media content from the web?
Maybe MS will help us out here (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Maybe MS will help us out here (Score:4, Insightful)
If they get the patent they can charge so much for the license that none of the media companies will buy it.
I think the favour they're doing us is thus: making it so onerous to watch TV that people simply turn it off, cancel their cable, and suddenly realize that they don't even miss it.
Re:let's be consistent (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't get it. Pushing the off button is equivalent to skipping all of the advertising, so you will have to pay even more.
A better way of advertising (Score:5, Insightful)
One thing advertisers don't seem to understand is that I actually like catching a new ad when I watch TV at a friend's place. Many of them are very artistic, cute, and funny.
But even a good joke told 5-6 times per day wears thin.
It's the broadcast time that is the majority of the expense for most advertisements, not the creation of the content. Stop torturing people with the same joke 50-60 times per week for a month at a time, and maybe they'll stop skipping over the ads. Show a new ad each day, or at least once a week.
But stop trying to hammer your "message" into us by repeating yourself ad-nauseum at full volume dozens of times per week. All you're doing is pissing off people and forcing them to use torrents and PVRs to escape your tripe.
Modern advertising is as annoying and effective as a two or three year old yelling "Mommie, mommie, mommie, can we..." over and over for three hours straight, trying to wear down their parents.
It's my money in the end. I'm not going to spend it on your products or give it to you just because you nag like a child. In fact, I'm likely to use your competitor's product because they're not insulting my intelligence and harassing me.
Who needs cable ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Even more abuse, and expense, from cable companies? Why do people put up with up?
You can watch practically anything on the internet. Not to mention services like netflix, hulu, or amazon, for about $8 a month. I have heard of people paying $190 a month for comcast.
Also, I think there are ways to get HDTV from broadcast signals.
Re:well fuck you! (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, they're certainly not doing anything to discourage it when they roll out stupid bullshit like this...
You know an industry is fucked up to the core when customers are treated like adversaries right off the bat. I won't shop in a store where I'm made to feel like a thief the moment I walk in the door, and that's precisely what all this crap does. As a corollary to that, I'm extremely short on sympathy for those that do treat their customers that way and end up with large portions of the population comfortable with ripping them off.
A survey [slashdot.org] a few months ago found that 70% of people in the U.S. think it's reasonable to share music with family and friends. Now, the RIAA will stamp their feet and gnash their teeth at that, but the fact of the matter is, the majority of the people of this country do not see a problem with it. They can choose to ignore this and throw billions of dollars at court costs and all the other bullshit related to music piracy, or they can start more closely examining why it is that so many people out there don't have any moral compunction trading music back and forth in the first place. I suppose one could say "Well, that just proves that most people are thieves...." but still, when that many people openly do something that is technically illegal, maybe it's time to start examining those laws. If laws are passed that make the vast majority of the population "criminals", then there's obviously something wrong with the laws.
Re:too late (Score:4, Insightful)
The more they nickel and dime us, the more people will be driven to much more convenient methods of distribution - i.e. piracy.
I am finding less and less companies that I am willing to give my money.
Re:well fuck you! (Score:5, Insightful)
When I pay for pay-per-view, then yes, I feel kinda entitled to watch the damn movie without them meddling with it. When I buy a DVD, I feel kinda entitled to watch the damn thing without first having to clean the kitchen to avoid the unskipable ads.
Get the idea?
When you sell me a product, I feel damn well entitled to use it!
Re:too late (Score:4, Insightful)
But the powers that be are trying to turn the internet into TV. So where does that leave us?
Re:too late (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft set back personal computing by, I would say. at least five years with their hanging on to Windows-for-DOS (ie the Win95/98/ME series) long after even entry level PCs were capable of running a half-decent OS in the form of WinNT (lets not even mention Unix/Xenix/Linux). Back in 1995 they could have produced a lightweight version of NT for popular use instead of the Win95 crap that they pushed for another 5 years.
The reason they did not was departmental in-fighting at Microsoft.
While MS employ some of the best graphic designers in the business, they have done almost f#@k all in the way of innovation.
Re:too late (Score:4, Insightful)
Listen to your subconscious and give up the cable!