Linked by David Adams on Tue 30th Dec 2008 19:04 UTC, submitted by jeanmarc
Microsoft A recently-filed patent from Microsoft gives us a glimpse into a possible future strategy from the software giant, wherein people buy a computer, but only pay for that portion of the computer's performance and capabilities they actually use. There's a pretty detailed summary of the plan in a Cnet article that's worth a read. It actually sounds a lot like a "cloud computing" strategy for the consumer, and it all seems to make sense, until you start to really think about it.
Order by: Score:
Pay per use
by OSGuy on Tue 30th Dec 2008 19:57 UTC
OSGuy
Member since:
2006-01-01

In my opinion this is the most ridiculous, most stupidest and dumbest idea Microsoft has ever come up with. Basically, MS will be in control of your PC. They tell you what you can use and what you can't use. They will own your life. So what happens when you decide to install new software that runs of the hard disk? Will they even let you? What happens if you try to install a non-MS OS. will there be some type of software in the BIOS that won't let you partition your hd or perhaps every hour the PC (Windows) would have to send a "ping" to one of MS's servers to make sure that your PC is still active and running jail-ware. Everyone agreeing (but being able to afford the real thing) to buy such a control chip in your home does not deserve to own a computer. Only the "where is the any key" user or "why does my PC not work (while there is a power outage)" would agree to such a computer.

Edited 2008-12-30 20:05 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE: Pay per use
by OSGuy on Tue 30th Dec 2008 20:10 UTC in reply to "Pay per use"
OSGuy Member since:
2006-01-01

Ok this is just ridicolous and I am furious about it:

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"


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"

"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"


Are you for real? Seriously! Perhaps they'd start charing how many times you've played a song with WM even non-protected or how many times you've visitted a web site or how long you have spent on linux.com and may be they'd be an extra charge when you go to distrowatch.com. This is so dumb. I so hope the patent does not go through.

Edited 2008-12-30 20:11 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Pay per use
by David on Tue 30th Dec 2008 20:15 UTC in reply to "RE: Pay per use"
David Member since:
1997-10-01

I don't care whether they get the patent. It's a perfectly original idea that deserves a patent as much as any other idea does. But it's a very stupid idea, and they'll implement it at their peril.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Pay per use
by jgardner100 on Thu 1st Jan 2009 01:42 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Pay per use"
jgardner100 Member since:
2007-01-02

It's not original at all. IBM, Sun & HP have been selling some form of on demand computing for years.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Pay per use
by sbergman27 on Tue 30th Dec 2008 20:21 UTC in reply to "RE: Pay per use"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

maybe there'd be an extra charge when you go to distrowatch.com.

This would be better handled through default settings in either "MS Parental Controls", or perhaps in the firewall of MS Pay Per Use Windows. Distrowatch encourages your children to install software which is "illegal" from the perspective of your Pay Per Use PC. An alternate viewpoint would be that distrowatch is a potential source for malware, and should simply be blocked at the firewall level.

Edited 2008-12-30 20:25 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Pay per use
by tomcat on Wed 31st Dec 2008 11:01 UTC in reply to "RE: Pay per use"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Are you for real? Seriously! Perhaps they'd start charing how many times you've played a song with WM even non-protected or how many times you've visitted a web site or how long you have spent on linux.com and may be they'd be an extra charge when you go to distrowatch.com. This is so dumb. I so hope the patent does not go through.


You're objecting to the idea, not the patent. And, really, the market will decide on the worthiness or worthlessness of the idea. So, why be outraged over things you have no control over? It's like being pissed off about gravity or the color of the sky.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Pay per use
by RRepster on Wed 31st Dec 2008 13:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Pay per use"
RRepster Member since:
2008-06-18

Certain things the market has no power over because of the monopoly power of the company. Gasoline for example, you need it therefore the price is irrelevant. As long as MSFT continues to be the dominant default system companies and users use then anything they come up with the people have no power over and are at the mercy of. Just like the RIAA and MPAA know that people see a need for music and movies, which allows them to manipulate prices and overly influence congress into passing protection laws. For things like Refrigerators and perhaps cameras we have choices but time and again its been proven that the "market" has zero power over MSFT schemes.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Pay per use
by tomcat on Sat 3rd Jan 2009 07:55 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Pay per use"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Certain things the market has no power over because of the monopoly power of the company.


You clearly have no idea how the OEM PC market works. Microsoft doesn't manufacture the hardware. The OEM (Dell, IBM, Gateway, HP, etc) does. Furthermore, the Department of Justice is monitoring the OEM PC market closely. They have representatives posted in Redmond who review all OEM deals and contracts. Microsoft can't ink a deal without getting approval. So, really, this idea that Microsoft can simply do whatever it wants is total BS.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Pay per use
by zima on Wed 31st Dec 2008 21:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Pay per use"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Also, I imagine lean and bloat-free apps would be absent from this "platform"...

Reply Score: 1

RE: Pay per use
by h3rman on Tue 30th Dec 2008 20:50 UTC in reply to "Pay per use"
h3rman Member since:
2006-08-09

In my opinion this is the most ridiculous, most stupidest and dumbest idea Microsoft has ever come up with. Basically, MS will be in control of your PC.


That's hardly stupid from MS' perspective. ;-)
I agree with you, to be sure, but rather because this thing shows how completely uninspired they've become.
A couple of years ago I actually thought some day MS might come up with their own Linux distribution, and even manage to make money off of it.
From the Redmond point of view, it's never stupid if it makes 'em money. Which is the only type of ethic they'll ever cling to. (FWIW, this is a purely descriptive statement. :-) )

Only the "where is the any key" user or "why does my PC not work (while there is a power outage)" would agree to such a computer.


http://www.ahajokes.com/cartoon/anykey.jpg

I've never found it hard to find the any key. :-P

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Pay per use
by OSGuy on Tue 30th Dec 2008 21:00 UTC in reply to "RE: Pay per use"
OSGuy Member since:
2006-01-01

That link is hilarious! ;) Thanks!

Reply Score: 3

RE: Pay per use
by sbergman27 on Tue 30th Dec 2008 21:13 UTC in reply to "Pay per use"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Only the "where is the any key" user or "why does my PC not work (while there is a power outage)" would agree to such a computer.

Does that mean we agree that most computer users today would go for it, as long as the initial buy in cost was low? Say they were offered a free one as a "gift" for opening a checking account with Bank X?

Edited 2008-12-30 21:14 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Pay per use
by deb2006 on Tue 30th Dec 2008 23:18 UTC in reply to "RE: Pay per use"
deb2006 Member since:
2006-06-26

I seriously doubt it. Microsoft thinks PC users are a stupid bunch - maybe that was true of the past. Nowadays - at least in part thanks to open source - that's not longer the case. Funnily Microsoft seems not to have realized this - or they have ignored it. Either way would be silly and utmost stupid. But then, brotha, it's Microsoft ...

Reply Score: 3

RE: Pay per use
by pfraine on Thu 1st Jan 2009 05:59 UTC in reply to "Pay per use"
pfraine Member since:
2009-01-01

Didn't MS and Intel work on a system called palladium some years ago? It was I thought meant to check your computer at boot up make sure your hardware and software were all legal. If there was a problem it wouldn't allow the system to boot. I heard they dropped it because of negative publicity, so I am not really surprised at your comments.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Pay per use
by one_of_many on Thu 1st Jan 2009 09:00 UTC in reply to "RE: Pay per use"
one_of_many Member since:
2009-01-01

Thank you! Good point.
The nefarious Palladium system, which harkens to the "blackbird" of the Win 4.0/Chicago days (later Win95), was an insidious attempt by Microsoft to control individual freedom. It never died. It is still alive, albeit in a different guise.
Heck, even "Blacbird" still exists. ActiveX, anyone?
https://www.trustedcomputinggroup.org/home
This is a bowel-loosening, Orwellian vision that Microsoft and their cohorts are promoting. I encourage all readers to check up on this, and take heed.
Clearly, this is simply another move in their grand strategy.

Reply Score: 1

Grasping at straws
by centos_user on Tue 30th Dec 2008 20:21 UTC
centos_user
Member since:
2008-11-16

I do not see this going anywhere unless they try to it the INet Cafes or something even so it is expensive and it would be monitored like a big brother machine.

I guess they are thinking along the line of an appliance device or something even so the cost and functionality would be more expensive than a in-house written application.

Reply Score: 2

Ehh
by Buck on Tue 30th Dec 2008 20:33 UTC
Buck
Member since:
2005-06-29

Don't you just love it how after all these years of breakthroughs in the information industry we find ourselves sucked back into the abyss of ignorance only because some people would like to be even more richer than they are.

Reply Score: 6

RE: Ehh
by Ressev on Tue 30th Dec 2008 20:51 UTC in reply to "Ehh"
Ressev Member since:
2005-07-18

Charity and compassion are good values, just ask post-ghost Scrooge.

Reply Score: 2

Is Microsoft TRYING to lose customers?
by tech10171968 on Tue 30th Dec 2008 20:35 UTC
tech10171968
Member since:
2007-05-22

I was willing to take a look at Windows 7, just to see if Microsoft learned anything from the fiasco known as Vista.

I guess this ridiculous patent for which they're applying pretty much answers that question for me...

Reply Score: 6

Great idea...
by bert64 on Tue 30th Dec 2008 20:46 UTC
bert64
Member since:
2007-04-23

If they implement something like this, then it will surely be cracked pretty rapidly...
Then i would buy them in their cheapest configuration, hack them for full performance and then use or resell them...

It will also make linux look even faster in comparison to windows, if linux is able to drive the hardware at full speed.

Reply Score: 2

jebus
by google_ninja on Tue 30th Dec 2008 20:54 UTC
google_ninja
Member since:
2006-02-05

Anyone who read past the first paragraph would realize this is obviously tailored towards kiosk machines in public or commercial locations, not home operating systems.

Reply Score: 4

Back-door patents
by StaubSaugerNZ on Tue 30th Dec 2008 21:06 UTC
StaubSaugerNZ
Member since:
2007-07-13

Microsoft never has to implement this patent. In fact, it could be more use to them to *prevent* others charging-per-service.

Of course, this only serves to stifle competition from small innovative companies with limited patent portfolios and legal budgets. The big players (Google, et al.) all have enough patents to do what they want anyway (can anyone say, "Mutual Assured Patent Destruction" ?).

The US patent system is sick for any rational person to see. It doesn't fulfill it's original purpose to protect small inventors. It is a shame that this model is trying to be foisted on the rest of the world through back-door dealings such as the ACTA trade agreement. Thank goodness the Europeans have been sensible enough to reject software patents so far (but it is a matter of time before the insatiable corporate interests get their way).

Edit: typo

Edited 2008-12-30 21:07 UTC

Reply Score: 4

IBM has been there done that
by fraser on Tue 30th Dec 2008 21:38 UTC
fraser
Member since:
2008-12-30

The IBM iSeries servers have commonly shipped with double or more physical processors installed but not enabled. Then the business can decide if they have some peak needs and call IBM for an activation code either for a few days a month or forever. This has the advantage of being an immediate/temporary upgrade based on current actual needs. I've never done this so this may not be a perfect explanation.

I hope Microsoft is denied the patent based on pre-existing work.

I also don't like the idea personally because of the potential "Surprise" bill because "little johnny" left his Torrent software running all night for a month straight.

Reply Score: 1

Unisys Clearpath MCP Libra Series.
by Skulker303 on Tue 30th Dec 2008 22:04 UTC
Skulker303
Member since:
2007-02-26

IBM is not the only mainframe manufacturer that does this. During my stint as a mainframe SYSOP at a credit union, we utilized the Processor on Demand capabilities of our Libra 185. With the entry of a code, we had twelve instances of additional computing power for the 'frame. We used it for month and year end processing. It came in quite handy as having the TPSL systems online prior to 08:00 was nice for the start of the business day.

(sigh)

Is my age showing???

I miss my MCP.

Reply Score: 1

JonathanBThompson
Member since:
2006-05-26

"The service provider can use new visualization technologies to efficiently share their overall computing resources among all their clients, and everyone's happy."

Hey, isn't that supposed to be "virtualization" instead? ;)

Taken to the logical extreme, this seems much like something that could hold people's data captive after they've created it: once you've created it, you need to use some application (presumably one you've rented from the system provider) to access and modify it, which means a longer term lock-in that's more like a time bomb in many ways, in that you pay to play, but it's impossible to know ahead of time the exact details. What if you created your resume/CV and needed that in the future when you were flat out broke? ;)

Other than the other examples previous posters have put up where this sort of thing has long been done with mainframes (they beat me to it, that's all!) if you think about it, this is exactly what cable and satellite TV providers have always been doing, but the biggest difference is that the media in question with TV just isn't all that valuable to keep around long-term, and if your livelihood depends on it, well... an interesting life you lead.

Reply Score: 2

Ressev Member since:
2005-07-18

Other than the other examples previous posters have put up where this sort of thing has long been done with mainframes (they beat me to it, that's all!) if you think about it, this is exactly what cable and satellite TV providers have always been doing, but the biggest difference is that the media in question with TV just isn't all that valuable to keep around long-term, and if your livelihood depends on it, well... an interesting life you lead.


Sort of like going from VCR/DVD player/Gaming Console to Satelite/Cable? Going from localized licensing to centralized rental of computer services.

Not really something for home users, like the article leads to, but certainly useful for locations where people travel (airports, hotels, train stations, etc.) and community locations (libraries, colleges, etc.). All those locations have to do is provide the hardware since the user will have their own traveling account. At least, I imagine so.

Reply Score: 1

bluedodo Member since:
2006-03-26

What if you created your resume/CV and needed that in the future when you were flat out broke?

I think you have bigger problems when you are flat broke then the fact that you might not be able to retrieve your resume/CV.

Reply Score: 1

darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Oh, I don't know. If you're flat out broke, not being able to retrieve something that might, just might, allow you to get employed again might be a rather large problem indeed. Of course, you can reconstruct it provided you remember every little detail out of hand. But if you don't...
That being said, you should always keep a hardcopy of important documents, and resumes would fall under that category in my book. Machines break down, hardcopies don't... well, unless you rip them of course.

Reply Score: 2

Rotten idea
by deb2006 on Tue 30th Dec 2008 23:10 UTC
deb2006
Member since:
2006-06-26

But straight from that ill mind of Microsoft. Far, far away from anything that even remotely resembles open source. And for that reason: rubbish. One cannot sell something like this nowadays - thanks to open source. And Microsoft will get to know it.

Reply Score: 4

Comment by moleskine
by moleskine on Wed 31st Dec 2008 00:40 UTC
moleskine
Member since:
2005-11-05

There's nothing unusual about this, in the sense that a rental model exists in many other walks of life from cars to apartments. Even dogs. Not yet wives or husbands, unfortunately. But when it comes to a basic staple - and arguably that's what a PC has now become for most people - the rental model tends to morph into something less appealing. It becomes a tax on the poor, since they cannot afford to escape the rental trap by buying outright. They don't have the capital.

So from one POV there's nothing wrong with this. Many people might want to rent a locked box for a week or two. Corporations might want to rent them by the thousand in lieu of Mr Dell and all his works. But at the other end, the poor end, history tells us that some ugly people soon move in and do ugly things, especially when they have a gigantic monopoly behind them. So if this ever became a reality, it would need very strict regulation, imho. One can easily imagine a scenario in which parents are told that unless they hand over 5000 bucks right now to Compu-Thug PC Rental Inc, little Johnny will lose access to all his homework and revision notes and so will fail all his exams. Sounds incredible? Not really any more so than the way banks and finance companies already behave.

Reply Score: 2

Only in America
by 2501 on Wed 31st Dec 2008 02:56 UTC
2501
Member since:
2005-07-14

Only MS could have come up with an idea like this....

ah.........no thank you.

-2501

Reply Score: 2

Who comes up with this??
by kurgan2001 on Wed 31st Dec 2008 04:34 UTC
kurgan2001
Member since:
2008-12-31

Seriously .. who comes up with this stuff. I thought rent-2-own was bad.

Reply Score: 1

MS Tax
by Gone fishing on Wed 31st Dec 2008 07:01 UTC
Gone fishing
Member since:
2006-02-22

Fantastic - The ultimate MS tax.

$1168 for two years of misery on a performance throttled PC that you can only browse on.

Brilliant!

I real hope this one's implemented it'll make Vista look like a roaring success

Edited 2008-12-31 07:03 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Another Monthly Bill?!?!
by lshurtl1 on Wed 31st Dec 2008 15:00 UTC
lshurtl1
Member since:
2008-12-31

I am opposed to any model where there is a reoccurring cost for basic usage of your own computer. Granted we pay a monthly fee for Internet service, however, it is an optional fee. A debatable topic in this “all-things-internet” age I know, but I can still create my resume, work a spreadsheet or work digital photography without the Internet or a reoccurring fee.

It's kinda like my running shoes. I want to be able to purchase a pair of shoes and run whenever I feel like it. I don't want to send 50 cents to New Balance for every 3 miles I run...

Reply Score: 1

It should be patented
by trenchsol on Thu 1st Jan 2009 18:31 UTC
trenchsol
Member since:
2006-12-07

It should be patented to make harder for the others to come up with such stupid ideas.

DG

Reply Score: 2

Pay Per Use
by wildman on Fri 2nd Jan 2009 01:44 UTC
wildman
Member since:
2007-08-05

No matter how its put out, it will only succeed if we buy it!

Reply Score: 1

This can be summed up by...
by aaronb on Fri 2nd Jan 2009 16:36 UTC
aaronb
Member since:
2005-07-06

Epic fail.

Reply Score: 2

Adobe CS4+
by bugjacobs on Sat 3rd Jan 2009 03:31 UTC
bugjacobs
Member since:
2009-01-03

Wake me up when I can rent Adobes software at a sane price in a pay per use scheme .. !

Or ALL of MS software. So I would be interested in rentable software yes. But not the whole computer..

Unless it was alot more powerful than I could ever buy.
It would be cool to go somewhere with a supercomputer to crunch video or render stuff maybe ..

And cloud computing is not very trustworthy..
Big Brother looking over your shoulder every moment..

Not that we have much of a guarantee thats not happening with Windows XP/Vista/7 to a large extent already ..

Reply Score: 1

RE: Adobe CS4+
by tomcat on Sat 3rd Jan 2009 07:58 UTC in reply to "Adobe CS4+"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

And cloud computing is not very trustworthy..
Big Brother looking over your shoulder every moment..


Tinfoil hat, anyone? Don't want Big Brother to dilute your precious bodily fluids...

Reply Score: 2