New Apple patent could kill commercial radio
mediauk.com
mediauk.com
The author fails to take into account the most basic aspect of radio, and that is the majority of the people that listen to commercial radio are listening to it on traditional radio receivers.
I don't, so I listen to radio and deal with the ads because there's nothing Apple can help me with on that front. What Apple should be doing to solve this problem is something like the Zune Pass or Rhapsody et al: pay to stream/download music on an all-you-can-eat basis, including preset "stations" that play brand new music or tunes picked for a specific purpose (ala Sirus/XM radio stations).
You know that all of those "problems" are solved with like $50, right?
Because those are two different mediums. In one you listen to your own music collection over and over, in the other you can find new things (at least where I live, dunno about commercial radio in the states), plus there are tons of NON musical programs you can tune in to.
Tons of people listen to radio stations even over the internet through their laptops/desktops, on which they already have access to iTunes/Spotify et al... Heck, people listen to radio stations even from _within_ iTunes.
Which is why I mentioned other services which allow you to listen to new music. Zune Pass playlists offer this, similar to Sirius/XM stations. Why would Apple bother making radio slightly better when they could completely destroy radio by offering something significantly better which also makes them money?
Making radio slightly better isn't worth buying a new stereo, new head unit for my car, etc. In those situations, radio is simply good enough. Apple doesn't generally play in markets where their best offering is only slightly better than good enough.
I'm starting to realize more and more that my annoyance and frustration with HN is more related to the horrible state of the media's quality.
Captain Obvious to the rescue.
The write of the article of course takes for given that when he talks about "a patent that could kill radio" he means "a patent that when developed into a product could kill radio".
The second part is so obvious it doesn't even need to be stated.
So Apple cuts a deal with the Cable providers, etc., then starts selling AppleTVs as licensed set-top boxes with integrated DVRs that -- like the gizmo in Contact (the novel, not the movie) -- automagically recognize ads and remove them and then make the content available on demand.
Shortly afterwards, TV production companies are much more amenable to "pay for content as desired" model such as found in ... oh look, the iTunes store.
Steve Jobs said he'd cracked TV. Does anyone think his idea of an ideal TV viewing experience included watching ads?
Could this be for their TV? OTA broadcasts are technically radio waves. Right?
All TV commercials on the AppleTV are now targeted to the individual household based on their metrics about you? Catch the fade-to-black and replace them. Delay the live signal long enough to catch the fade-to-black when the show is coming back live?
It's explicitly mentioned that the user receives the media stream e.g. radio or internet audio and then switches to a local media stream. The company he listed, Absolute Radio is doing the sending not receiving. So the patent doesn't even apply.
That said why on earth would Apple be at all interested in suing radio stations. It's completely and utterly illogical given how much they rely on content providers.