Far fetched question in the headline? The answer is always no.
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.
If I had a iPhone jack in my car, I would listen to my iPhone's music. If I had an iPhone receiver in my garage, I'd listen to my iPhone's music. If I had an iPhone receiver in my office, I'd listen to my iPhone's music.
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).
I have an iPhone jack in my car, I listen to the radio occasionally, it's nice to listen to something different and hear a bit of new music, re-discover some old songs rather than rehashing my usual playlists out over and over again... I don't think I would ever connect my iPhone and use it as a radio though. Aside from the battery drain (yes, I have a car charger, but think about when you're not in the car) I think it would get annoying listening to 30-40 seconds of a track and then flicking back to radio!
Obviously that's an option from Rhapsody, Spotify, etc. I use the Zune Pass (since I have a Zune). My point was that Apple can only help me if I have a reason to upgrade my stuff to handle Apple's products/services. If I don't need to upgrade (if my hardware can handle an iPhone), why would I bother listening to OTA radio?
>f I had a iPhone jack in my car, I would listen to my iPhone's music. If I had an iPhone receiver in my garage, I'd listen to my iPhone's music. If I had an iPhone receiver in my office, I'd listen to my iPhone's music.
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.
You know that all of those "problems" are solved with like $50, right?
You completely missed the point. The point is, the only reason I listen to radio instead of iTunes is because sometimes I can't get iTunes playing over my stereo where I currently am. If I can get iTunes through the stereo, why bother with radio, and if I can't get iTunes through the stereo why is Apple's system worth investing to make this work?
>If I can get iTunes through the stereo, why bother with radio
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.
In one you listen to your own music collection over and over, in the other you can find new things
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 don't think the author actually bothered to read the patent.
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.
The author isn't saying that Apple could kill commercial radio by suing the radio stations for violating this patent, the argument is that no one will ever listen to commercials again therefore killing the stations revenue stream.
That's a fair point, and some websites have claimed that AdBlock is hurting them. However, to really do some damage, you need to have a critical mass; you need enough people doing it to actually make a sizable dent in your income. AdBlock is popular, but not at a critical mass. Apple products are in position to put this into the spotlight.
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?
Patents don't kill other products, products do. I could make a patent for a magical frosting generator cannon but until it's on the shelves in a way affordable to consumers, who cares?
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.
>Patents don't kill other products, products do. I could make a patent for a magical frosting generator cannon but until it's on the shelves in a way affordable to consumers, who cares?
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.
Actually it's much funnier than the article realizes. The patent says "such as" a commercial radio broadcast. What's a lot like a commercial radio broadcast? Commercial TV.
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?
I wonder how much revenue radio stations make from devices that could implement this ad-replacement technology compared to the revenue they make from dedicated radios. If it's a sizable fraction of radio station ad revenue, then it does have a chance of killing commercial radio. If the majority of the audience is listening on dedicated radios, then it won't kill commercial radio.
21 comments
[ 1.8 ms ] story [ 54.2 ms ] threadThe 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.
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.
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?
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?