Linked by David Adams on Tue 30th Dec 2008 19:04 UTC, submitted by jeanmarc
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.
Thread beginning with comment 341915
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:1997-10-01
Member since:2007-01-02
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
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.
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.
Member since:2005-07-06
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
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