Comments on: Microsoft outlines pay-per-use PC vision

In a patent application, Redmond argues that you would benefit from metered computing by having a PC with an extended "useful life."

[crwilsn]

This is the most ridiculous idea I have ever heard. This would be the end of Microsoft.

[FanBoy200]

....too late.... they already jumped the shark.....

[Yurtrash]

Doesn't matter that it's ridiculous. It was either prescient or not. But this patent is unlikely to be granted given the USPTO's new found opposition to business methods patents. There is really no basis for a patent to issue. First, the patent does not disclose any new technology to implement this product and more importantly the idea is not non-obvious. That is, the idea is obvious to a reasonable practitioner in the field and isn't such a leap forward as to justify the award of protection. For example, how significantly does this model differ from going to a copy store and renting one of their computers and software for a couple of hours?

[cchenoweth6]

This is not too far off of the iPhone concept. People seem to love that. They don't seem to mind paying the "extra monthly fees" and such.

Just a thought.

[Vegaman_Dan]

It's also exactly the way that all cell phone contracts are done today already.

It's not a new method at all.

[Penguinisto]

@crwilsn: The patent is not only ridiculous, but is also easily invalidated due to prior art - airports had pay-as-you-go computer kiosks with Internet access for just over a decade now.

Dunno what they were thinking when they tried to pull a stunt like that.

[bentbrewer]

I completely agree, here's to the end of M$

[brian.lee]

They're running out of ideas... Windows XP was too good.

[Commander_Spock]

Why do you think that there was a "conspiracy" to kill OS/2 which was superior to Windows in its time. And, we all know now what has happened to the Republican Party during the last general Elections in the USA as well as what is happening to the world's economy. Fix the world's computing analytical systems; and, - WALLA!

[Get_Bent]

Not more of the "Great OS/2 Conspiracy" again -- you beat that dead horse into a stain on the road a _long_ time ago....

Oh, and your command of French is atrocious.

[smilin:)]

MS wrote OS/2 dingbat.

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.

[Renegade Knight]

@smilin:)

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.

[Myztry]

Microsoft and IBM co-wrote OS/2. The GUI aspects were cross-licensed from Commodore Amiga (in exchange for the Rexx scripting language).
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.

[Kev_Orng]

Oh, you know what else they could do? They could have 6 different versions of Windows and Office as well, so you can choose the version that almost meets your actual needs, but is missing that One Important Thing that forces you to spend an extra $150 for the next version up.

Microsoft: The Illusion of Choice

[aka_tripleB]

[Sarcasm] You mean, if I buy a Mac, it will have everything so I never have to upgrade the system? Anyone who has been sticking with Windows is a fool!

[Kev_Orng]

@aka_tripleB
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.

[bj1126]

I see this model being more useful in a hosting situation where you pay for use of a "PC" that runs in a data center on some sort of virtual machine that you can dynamically adjust the resources allocated to it. I really can't see the point of this in a hardware end user situation. Just seems to cumbersome and prone to hacking.

[smilin:)]

You came closer than anyone in the comments (so far) to nailing this I think.

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.

[Lerianis]

A PC you buy being obsolete? BWAHAAHAHAAHAHA! I've never heard anything so funny on CNet before. This is NEVER going to happen, because people do NOT want to lose time to internet failure!
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.

[smilin:)]

Lerainis do try to learn what cloud computing is before you comment. Cloud is not synonymous with "internet" nor does a cloud computer become 100% unavailable if the internet goes down.

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.

[sharmajunior]

This is a somewhat confusing as well as a stupid concept.

[thelemurking]

Why?

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.

[Lerianis]

Actually, most people DO have a problem paying that much for cell phone service. That is the reason why most people I know (these are middle class people!) won't buy a cell phone: TOO EXPENSIVE!

[Kev_Orng]

@thelemurking
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.

[Renegade Knight]

@thelemurking

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.

[Pishkado]

This may not be the wave of the future. (I don't think it is.) This may not even be a good idea - for most people, or for just about anyone. And, if it's ever offered, maybe it will fall on its face. But you have to give Microsoft credit for recognizing that their current revenue model has a finite lifetime and that something else will eventually replace it, even if they don't know what, and for thinking outside the box in terms of what that something might be.

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.

[dstrauss]

Oh gee, let's see, we're going to apply the Vista model to the computer now...Vista Home Basic, which does nothing but start the computer...gosh, I really need a processor that runs...let's go Home Premium...oops, can't connect to the office network, that means Business right...oops again, want to handle media, so now it's on to Ultimate...Gee Whiz, where's Windows 7 when you need it (but how many flavors will it have)...

[Hernys]

Home basic works for most tasks, it can run Office (and Open Office), it has no limitations for Internet browsing or media, it does not impose practical limits on hardware and it does not limit number or type of applications in any way. It is missing the glitter, but that has nothing to do with real functionality.
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!

[ivorycruncher]

This is pretty much equivalent to cell phone manufacturers locking their phones to only work with one service provider and the service providers giving away the phones or selling them dirt cheap, because you actually end up paying for the phone via the monthly service fees over the length of the service contract you had to sign. They don't want you to unlock the phones to work with other providers, because then they wouldn't get their return on investment from you. It's pretty obvious that lots and lots of people hate, or rather DESPISE this kind of business model, but are forced to use it because there's really no other option.

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.

[TX-Sunset]

I think M$ is just patenting this idea so no one else can. I do not forsee it ever being a valid business model. They admit it will cost more and yet they still believe people will buy into it? I will switch to another OS long before that ever becomes a reality. We see how great it is working for their OS and Office line. Everyone buys the student editions or OEM versions. When will they learn they need to just have one product. The full blown version and sell or for 100 bucks. They would greatly reduce piracy, as more people could afford it, and they would make a killing in both profit and the market share.

[smilin:)]

Make up your mind before proposing an argument.

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!

[FanBoy200]

Makes you think the Hardware vendors with Microsoft will be charging the Consumers More than what a computer is really worth. The whole idea of a lease is to make the money back on a "product" by extending the period you would be paying for the "product" Plus the cost of lending the money to purchase the "product" Plus a profit. Makes you want to think twice if the computer only cost $500 to buy but 1000 to lease..... This reminds me of the street scams where they hide a stone under on of three cups and you bet on which cup the stone is under..... Welcome to the new Microsoft Business Model..... Mac Rules...

[umbrae]

Like MS' licensing models are already not complicated enough. I can see a need for this (allowing a poor child to have a computer for a limited time and low cost); however, with Netbooks and other things being so inexpensive, I am not sure it will take off. Not to mention, this should be a hardware vendor's model not and MS one. More than likely MS is trying to patent the idea to make money off someone elses implementations rather than any actual service of theirs.

[SirRobinOfPennsynvania]

The Cell Phone business model is now being applied to the PC... Currently, customers can lease Computers and Software. Mirosoft has a hidden agenda. This is a measure to counter piracy and other problems that plague Microsoft.

[fuzbears]

Can you imaging reading Cnet with a taxi style meter dinging off how much it cost you to read that paragraph.. It would sure change web surfing habits..

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..

[stingray_5]

I can't imagine anyone would want to pay by the hour to use their own computer.

No thanks..

[tlj0001]

There are people who would pay for anything. I think the general public would not get it until they are already trapped by the business model

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.

[Lerianis]

The consumers are NOT as stupid as people make them out to be. I've already had non-techie friends online say that there is NO WAY IN HELL that they would ever buy into the 'cloud computing' stuff

[eCurmudgeon]

I'll go along with this only if Microsoft changes the EULA and gives me the right to sue them for shoddy software that doesn't perform as advertised.

[Understarsidream]

This is Microsoft's wet dream... they charge you every time you start your computer or open a program.

[jtjj1234]

This is unbelievably retarded. It's like M$ wants consumers to go from using broadband back to dialup (pay as you go)- the idea may be valid, but in reality no one is going to adopt this backward proposal.

[mvl_groups_user]

PCs are as cheap as VCRs were 10 years ago, and dropping in price just as fast.

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.

[Jonathan]

I'm going to be blunt. MS has been on a bender over the last few years trying to push the concept of pay as you go OS's. If they every try and force this down my throat....I will be done with MS forever. I pay for my computer ONCE. I pay for my OS ONCE. I pay for my software ONCE. I'm already nickled and dimed to death with my ISP, cell phone, Sat TV, utilities, etc, etc, etc. I do NOT need to add the ability to use my computer to that group. Esp if, god forbid I lost my job. I can drop a phone. I can drop sat TV. The concept of dropping access to my computer which I would use to look for a new job and generally communicate is so asinine that I's sooner go back to Mac then do such a thing.
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.

[smilin:)]

So you pay for your computer once huh?

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.

[Mergatroid Mania]

I agree 100%. And, unlike the one idiot (Dalkorian) I know where you're coming from. Dalkorian get a life. We really don't need comments from the peanut gallery. I was under the impression that insulting comments were not allowed on CNET, and your entire message qualifies.

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.

[gorgeclimber]

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!

[Dalkorian]

Name the Apple equivalent of WGA. I dare you. I double dog dare you.

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$.

[DrtyDogg]

@Dalkorian: You make this too easy, The Trusted Platform Module.

Does this mean you've got to stick your tongue on the frozen flag pole?

[smilin:)]

Actually in hindsight (I ******* about it at the time) WGA has turned out very well for both MS and the consumer.

"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.