New Apple patent could kill commercial radio

http://www.mediauk.com/article/34058/new-apple-patent-could-kill-commercial-radio

by andyking • 14 years ago

13 19 14 years ago

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.

freehunter5• 14 years ago

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).

kamjam• 14 years ago

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!

mnicole• 14 years ago

What's stopping you from using a current online radio service with all of those features through your iPhone?

batista3• 14 years ago

>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?

taligent• 14 years ago

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.

gtCameron• 14 years ago

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.

vhf• 14 years ago

People saying this patent could kill free commercial radio should also be saying that AdBlock could kill the free web(-sites, -blogs, etc).

freehunter5• 14 years ago

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.

cwisecarver• 14 years ago

I don't know much about how patents work.

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?

homosaur• 14 years ago

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.

batista3• 14 years ago

>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.

podperson• 14 years ago

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?

ams6110• 14 years ago

All media is going to be on-demand at some point. Broadcast is going to be around only for "live" stuff e.g. sports.

lurkinggrue• 14 years ago

Wait, commercial radio is still around?

New Apple patent could kill commercial radio

Related Stories