Comments on: Philips device could force TV viewers to watch ads
So long, TiVo? Invention would prevent channel switching during commercials or fast-forwarding past ads on a DVR.
So long, TiVo? Invention would prevent channel switching during commercials or fast-forwarding past ads on a DVR.
January 5, 2010 10:35 PM PST
January 5, 2010 7:48 PM PST
January 5, 2010 6:00 PM PST
Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
Related quotes
Seriously though...
Philips...I can still use the Mute button and close my eyes...right?
Try this on for size. I just became born again and partial nudity ads offend me. Say Victorias Secret ads. Now you have in effect taken away my right of freedom of religion by forcing the display of what I deem immoral. WHAP...ca-ching...pay me.
One more reason to make your own linux based personal digital recorder box.
service or watch TV at all. Just because you pay for a service
doesn't necessarily mean you have the right to do whatever you
want with it.
I'm not siding with this invention because I think it's ridiculous. I
just think you are too confident in your argument when it is, in
fact, lacking.
The way I see it, advertising should be forced to subsidize the entire cost of whatever service you get making (basic) cable/satelite free. Only then make us pay a monthly fee to disable advertising.
So instead, I give a Raspberry to the broadcast industry for continued abuse of viewers.
:-p
Slashdot history, you'd see the idea floated
around several years ago. Other ideas included
making it impossible for you to turn off the TV
during advertisements or specials, and
preventing the user from switching stations. How
about bidding for the right to watch what you
want -- if your bid comes above that of the
content pusher, you can switch stations,
otherwise you can only watch what they tell you
to.
Nope, nothing new here.
At least patenting it will curb it's adoption.
However, with that said their is one thing that everyone needs to remember. "Content" is not free to create whether it's TV, movies, music or websites. Someone has to be willing to pay for it in the end. Generally that someone has been "Advertisers" or "Consumers".
As we in the Tivo-Age find more creative ways to prevent advertisers access to our eyeballs, they are going to be less and less likely to pick up the tab. The end result is that we as consumers will end up paying more.
So... For those of you who complain every time you have to watch an ad, just remember that in the end you will either pay with your eyes, or your pocketbook.
Personally I prefer a balance.
I wish they would make us pay to NOT see something. It would give me the best reason in the world to sell my television sets.
And I guarantee you, if they want to avoid lawsuits for millions, they've got two options.
1: Don't go forward with this technology.
2: Go forward with it, pay for every subscriber's cable service in full, then require a monthly fee for skipping ads.
There is NO way consumers will pay a monthly fee to the cable co AND a fee to the broadcaster to skip ads. It's one or the other; you don't get your cake and eat it too.
I can't tell if this is a brilliant way to get me to (1) save money by cancelling cable and (2) get out more and do something productive with my life. Or, is this just what it sounds like: a really stupid idea. Then again, maybe it's both: brilliantly stupid.
be a good thing. I'd probably get much more exercise and
probably would even get some things done around the home.
Yeah, go ahead force me to stop watching TV. It's mostly crap
anyway.
- grrr
- by shentino April 19, 2006 3:05 PM PDT
- This is a bad idea.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 4 pages (103 Comments)If you're channel surfing looking for a good show, you might miss the first minute of a really good show if an advert came on a split second on another channel you poinged over.
Me? If I was forced to watch an ad I could just as easily pull the plug :P