Hi, I have own personal count with PHILIPS, read it there:http://www.polyakov.org/wordpress/archives/57  

Amazing they have not learned. Wasn’t there also that old story (an urban myth?) about Philips’ early microwave oven, which was originally shaped like a nuclear power station? No one bought it, of course.  

That's right Mr. Yan. I absolutely coincide with you. I'd also like to add that Philips is perhaps among one of the few brands now which is suffering from a brand-fatigue as it seems. Their product is so very high-tech [with so very many patents] but they doesn't really catch on with the consumers - at least as far as India is concerned. If you see the market share of consumer electronics companies here you'd find Philips almost non-existent - way behind Samsung or LG or even Videocon - a homegrown brand. But it was not so in the past decades - when Philips was almost synonymous with what was consumer electronics in India. I have occasionally asked friends what they think of Philips. The reply was quick - Philips ! Please. My Dad has had enough of it ! I strongly believe Philips should now be more consumer-centric rather than product-centric. They should get close to the heart of the consumer and if possible go for a total image makeover. Currently they are another Olsmobile on the block.  

They WILL get hurt ...  

Well said, Rohan, especially about brand fatigue. Philips needs to reconnect with consumers, and be “one” with them.
   Ric—you bet. Igor’s list makes for good reading, in particular.  

Update: Philips says the technology can be switched off—whether it’s now back-tracking or not, you be the judge. (Thanks to Adfreak.) I still think my comments about Philips’ technology-first stance, as well as what Igor, Rohan and Ric have posted here, remain as valid as ever.  

Despite Philips' denial, the wording of the patent application makes it quite clear that the aim is to wrest control from the user's hands, e.g. "The first MHP application then takes exclusive control of the channel switching function. Any attempt by the viewer to switch channels during an advertisement is then disregarded."

This doesn't sound as if it will be easy to switch off, nor designed for people who might or might not like to watch adverts during a movie.

Likewise, the statement "If the viewer wishes to be able to change channels or fast forward during advertisements, the viewer sends a payment authorization to make a payment to the program broadcaster" doesn't sound as if it's down to whether people want to watch ads or not: it's whether they've paid to have the privilege to switch channels during the break.

More discussion of this 'architecture of control':
http://architectures.danlockton.co.uk/?p=61  

Thank you, Dan. I believe I said on a few blogs: why invent a device that preserves the status quo of having commercials? You have the answer: the technology goes further than preserving the status quo. Indeed, it takes it far further away from where consumers would like to be. (Incidentally, you are in my blog roll now.)