Microsoft outlines pay-per-use PC vision
Microsoft has applied for a patent on metered, pay-as-you-go computing.
U.S. patent application number 20080319910, published on Christmas Day, details Microsoft's vision of a situation where a "standard model" of PC is given away or heavily subsidized by someone in the supply chain. The end user then pays to use the computer, with charges based on both the length of usage time and the performance levels utilized, along with a "one-time charge."
Microsoft notes in the application that the end user could end up paying more for the computer, compared with the one-off cost entailed in the existing PC business model, but argues the user would benefit by having a PC with an extended "useful life."
"A computer with scalable performance level components and selectable software and service options has a user interface that allows individual performance levels to be selected," reads the patent application's abstract. The patent application was filed June 21, 2007.
"The scalable performance level components may include a processor, memory, graphics controller, etc. Software and services may include word processing, email, browsing, database access, etc. To support a pay-per-use business model, each selectable item may have a cost associated with it, allowing a user to pay for the services actually selected and that presumably correspond to the task or tasks being performed," the abstract continues.
Integral to Microsoft's vision is a security module, embedded in the PC, that would effectively lock the PC to a certain supplier.
"The metering agents and specific elements of the security module...allow an underwriter in the supply chain to confidently supply a computer at little or no upfront cost to a user or business, aware that their investment is protected and that the scalable performance capabilities generate revenue commensurate with actual performance level settings and usage," the application reads.
'A more granular approach'
According to the application, the issue with the existing PC business model is that it "requires more or less a one chance at the consumer kind of mentality, where elasticity curves are based on the pressure to maximize profits on a one-time-sale, one-shot-at-the-consumer mentality."
Microsoft's proposed model, on the other hand, could "allow a more granular approach to hardware and software sales," the application states, adding that the user "may be able to select a level of performance related to processor, memory, graphics power, etc that is driven not by a lifetime maximum requirement but rather by the need of the moment."
"When the need is browsing, a low level of performance may be used and, when network-based interactive gaming is the need of the moment, the highest available performance may be made available to the user," the document reads. "Because the user only pays for the performance level of the moment, the user may see no reason to not acquire a device with a high degree of functionality, in terms of both hardware and software, and experiment with a usage level that suits different performance requirements."
By way of example, the application posits a situation involving three "bundles" of applications and performance: office, gaming, and browsing.
"The office bundle may include word-processing and spreadsheet applications, medium graphics performance and two of three processor cores," the document reads. "The gaming bundle may include no productivity applications but may include 3D graphics support and three of three processor cores. The browsing bundle may include no productivity applications, medium graphics performance and high-speed network interface."
"Charging for the various bundles may be by bundle and by duration. For example, the office bundle may be $1.00 [68 pence] per hour, the gaming bundle may be $1.25 per hour and the browsing bundle may be $0.80 per hour. The usage charges may be abstracted to 'units/hour' to make currency conversions simpler. Alternatively, a bundle may incur a one-time charge that is operable until changed or for a fixed-usage period," the document reads.
Microsoft's patent application does acknowledge that a per-use model of computing would probably increase the cost of ownership over the PC's lifetime. The company argues in its application, however, that "the payments can be deferred and the user can extend the useful life of the computer beyond that of the one-time purchase machine."
The document suggests that "both users and suppliers benefit from this new business model" because "the user is able to migrate the performance level of the computer as needs change over time, while the supplier can develop a revenue stream business that may actually have higher value than the one-time purchase model currently practiced."
"Rather than suffering through less-than-adequate performance for a significant portion of the life of a computer, a user can increase performance level over time, at a slight premium of payments," the application reads. "When the performance level finally reaches its maximum and still better performance is required, then the user may upgrade to a new computer, running at a relatively low performance level, probably with little or no change in the cost of use."
Just a thought.
It's not a new method at all.
Dunno what they were thinking when they tried to pull a stunt like that.
Oh, and your command of French is atrocious.
They also abandonded it in favor of NT 3 when it became obvious it could be something more. Frankly OS/2 sucked. The only things it had that worked well made it into NT.
OS/2 lacked a GUI when it first came out. Once it had one, windows had a foothold. Even with the slow start OS/2 kicked Windows butt in all areas save one. Sales.
Ironicly MicroSoft was a co ownwer of OS/2. Yet they didn't borrow the parts that worked better than windows for windows. The inferior product won the day.
IBM and Microsoft then split (IBM using V2 and Microsoft V3 of OS/2). Microsoft took with it some of the GUI tech acquired from Amiga (such as message based graphical systems) but implemented it poorly.
The result was NT (Nothers Technology) and the rest is history... They rode IBM's PC's inferior but expandable platform on the back of third party hardware developers.
Microsoft: The Illusion of Choice
Did I mention Macs? Besides, this isn't about upgrades down the line. It's about choosing packages from a company that has a knack for offering packages that just fall short of what you need, so you have to buy the next package.
But since you brought it up, my PowerMac G4 was awesome and more than adequate for 7 years, I only upgraded the OS once, and I only just replaced it with a notebook last month, and the still working G4 is going to my nephew who will probably get another three years out of it.
The patent is related to cloud computing. The concept of a PC you "buy" is eventually going to be obsolete. MS isn't being stupid here, they are just looking so far into the future that it doesn't make sense in the present.
Simply put: Until the internet is up 110% of the time....... cloud computing for ANYTHING but big businesses is a pipe dream or wet dream for Microsoft and others.
Oh and BTW High Availability Servers sitting on the Internet have higher uptime than most corporate and home computers. When was the last time you saw Amazon.com go down? I bet if you can't reach Amazon then it's more likely your PC is down than Amazon or the internet connecting to it.
Do you own a cellphone? Doesn't seem much different than paying to use a mobile phone... yet people seem to have no issue paying $100+ a month for phone service.
I think the cellphone concept is stupid. expensive subsidized phones on even more expensive plans... I switched to Pay As You Go with a cheap flip phone and I've never been happier.
Great comparison. If ypu paid a rental fee every time you turned your cell phone on in addition to all the other fees you pay to actually have cell service you would have a good comparison.
They shouldn't get a patent for it, though. Charging on the basis of user-selectable resource usage levels has been common in the large-scale world for ages. It'll only get by if the patent examiners, like too many people, know PCs and think they know computing. If granted, this patent will be thrown out on the basis of prior art the first time anyone challenges it - but if it's not a good idea in the first place, chances are nobody will bother to.
Home premium can connect to the office network just right. I do it all the time, via RAS, VPN and even when I bring my laptop to the office. It just cannot be a part of Active Directory. But if I wanted my machine to be a part of AD, why would I buy the "home" version?
And Business can handle media OK. It just doesn't have media center, but that's not needed to manage media, just useful for a static PC used as a media manager. Business has media player and if you don't like it you can install any other free player available.
So you got four wrong out of four. Way to go!
You know, I think they tried something similar to this with ISPs several years ago. They'd sell you a complete PC for around $400 or so if you signed up for a 2-year contract with one of several ISPs. The PCs were complete JUNK, not worth the materials they were made out of, and not many people liked to be tied into one particular provider for so long, so the business model failed miserably. I think this new proposal will die a similar death.
Pick one and stick to it:
1. MS (not M$, what are you 10y/o? ) is patenting this idea so that no one else can
2. This will never be a valid business model.
There isn't much point in doing #1 if #2 is true. If #2 is true then you better do #1.
Congratulations: You've out-argued yourself in a single post!
The idea of delivering hardware that is throttled, and you do not have access to unless you pay an upcharge, is just plain crazy.. Even if you are just word processing, cutting down on number of processors, or even turning of 3d features (depending on graphics in document) can slow you down.
The model would make sense if it was like mainframe, with computing done over network, but it will be at least 10 years before networks are fast enough for that.
Besides, how is this even something you can patent. The business model is nothing new, and the patent is not specific enough on how the encryption/security chip ensures the computer remains under control of service provider. I think this is a defensive patent, like the one apple did on gestures: not something they can enforce, but could use as defense in a lawsuit..
No thanks..
I personally think the ideal is not in the best interest of the public. It is just a way to bleed the consumer dry. The current model is the best for consumers.
The only people who pay monthly for a VCR are the low-income rent-a-center clients. I don't think microsoft has a chance at mass-market appeal with this pricing structure.
Maybe they're doing this for server pricing, although I would suspect there are numerous examples of "prior art" in the server pricing arena.
So in summary: MS....don't screw around with this. If you want to offer it as an option along side outright purchase. That is fine. But the minute you start doing leasing get ready to watch your market share drop another 10% in 2 years if you try such a stunt.
What are you running in there and 8088? You know they had these things call pentiums a few years back. Nifty stuff. You should see what's running today!
You don't pay for your computer once. You pay for it many times over. Wouldn't it be nice if you automatically moved from a dual core to a quad after 6 months for no additional charge? Want to jump up to a 16 core box for a few weeks to get that project done but don't want to keep it after that? See the bigger picture.
If you want to talk about evil, how about the company who used to sell computers without a keyboard, claiming you didn't need one to use their computer and then charge extra for it. Or are you too young to remember that? Act your age and not your shoe size. Maybe if all these expenses were coming out of your pocket instead of your parents, you'd be a little more concerned.
- by gorgeclimber December 29, 2008 8:18 AM PST
- After 24 years of buying Microsoft products, I am appalled. Microsoft's approach seems to follow that of Apple, the CD/DVD industry, and phone companies -- rip off the public for as much as possible. It's becoming more apparent that the government and legal system only protects the wealthy. May they go the way of the US automobile companies!
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by Dalkorian December 29, 2008 11:20 AM PST
- Name the Apple equivalent of WGA. I dare you. I double dog dare you.
- Like this
-
- by DrtyDogg December 29, 2008 12:34 PM PST
- @Dalkorian: You make this too easy, The Trusted Platform Module.
- Like this
-
- by smilin:) December 29, 2008 1:18 PM PST
- Actually in hindsight (I ******* about it at the time) WGA has turned out very well for both MS and the consumer.
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 3 pages (80 Comments)Oh wait, that's right. THERE IS NO SUCH THING.
Apple is not the most wholesome company in the world, that is without a doubt. But they are a whole lot closer when compared to the likes of M$.
Does this mean you've got to stick your tongue on the frozen flag pole?
"We're just finishing an install of OCS 2007. The R2 version is coming out in February and we'll get it for free".
Now that Dlkorian brought up that dumb WGA argument this whole pay for PC thing makes more sense.