Daylife/AP Photo by Elaine Thompson
|
Microsoft has applied for a patent on metered, pay-as-you-go computing. Under the proposal, consumers would receive heavily discounted PCs, then pay fees for usage.
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.”
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.”
Is there anyone besides beancounters on the Microsoft payroll?
Isn’t Cloud Computing/Internet Applications all stepping stones to this end result? Isn’t a “license” for software a step in this direction?
All your computing are belong to us.
Capitalism will make the consumer a slave if not regulated.
Steve Balmer may be the best thing that ever happened to Linux. You go girl.
So what happens with the internet goes out / it can’t report usage? Is the computer going to be coin operated? Also will it charge for freezes? What about bogged down processes?
A good sign there’s no innovation coming from MS in the coming years…
“Is there anyone besides beancounters on the Microsoft payroll?”
There are a whole, whole lot of sales and marketing folks. This whole scheme feels like a Ballmer idea, is a rip off of a small business model, and doesn’t address support.
It’s impressive that Microsoft can make home computing so boring.
What worries me is in the main article: “Integral to Microsoft’s vision is a security module, embedded in the PC, that would effectively lock the PC to a certain supplier.”
Following previous MS behavior they might push for such module as a standard and unavoidable part of the hardware sold… Which may frustrate the free hardware usage as we know it today. I just hope that there are not enough idiots out there who would actually buy into this scheme…
Yep, this does feel like a Ballmer idea.
The sooner Ray Ozzie takes over Microsoft the better.
Microsoft is about as high above equilibrium as any company can ever get.
Since they have all that money and at least for right now, rather insignificant competition, they have to figure out how to grow the business.
For a company that far beyond equilibrium, it will be a steady stream of bad ideas because there just aren’t too many ways for Microsoft to improve upon what they are doing revenue-wise.
Wow, 2009 the year of the cloud desktop. And OMG LOL, it is gonna be provided by none other than Microsoft as a discount computing solution!
Look at the freetard brains explode all over the internet!
This could be a template for the car industry. What an innovation!
“The end user then pays to use the computer, with charges based on both the length of usage time and the performance levels utilized.”
Sounds to me like a glorified internet café.
And, of course, the Feds will issue the patent.
#11 nicely put
Microsoft trying to get into the hardware side of things …..again.
What that definition of insanity again?
Sounds to me, too, like the Cellular business model (see the article on text messaging in today’s blog)….
Or King Gillette, many years ago – give away the razors and rape ’em for the blades….
Or the telco before the breakup….
People WILL go for it…. It removes thinking (and knowledge) from a good part of the procurement process (software and hardware). Think about most notebook deals today – fairly decent hardware bundled with MS Office (some flavor or other) and a copy of AOL, and you’re done. You don’t need to make decisions about memory, processor, graphics cards, etc. Just take it home an power it up….
(IMHO, a lot of people bought laptops for this reason, rather than any cool factor, back when most PC purchases involved specifying features & such – that they didn’t understand anyway.)
That people are buying desktops bundled up the same way is nice, too, of course….
I just got a new cellphone for my daughter (my new one’s been a horror story of undocumented features that I needed, but that’s another story). The new bill has a $30 “data” charge on it. A bunch of ring tones, a game, and $10 for downloading the GPS software…. I called ’em about that one….
Which, btw, is another place where the cellular people rip you off – buy a new phone, and all the expensive toys that you had to buy separately go away until you buy them again….
Regards
They are welcome to take a long walk on a short peer will carrying a large walk hopefully while heading out to sea.
The incompatents at the patent office will most likely be brain dead enough to actually give them a patent on this though how renting anything can be a noval idea escapes me.
God Please someone break the monopoly these guys are idiots.
M$ = “Software as a (PAY ME NOW ***AND*** PAY ME LATER) “SERVICE” ” !!!
KA-CHING, KA-CHING, KA-CHING !!!
JUST SAY NO !!!
Time for GNU/Linux, OpenOffice, Firefox, etc – FREE, OPEN-SOURCE SOFTWARE – Computing WITHOUT BEGGING !!!
So tell me, how is this different to signing up with a new cell phone contract where the phone itself is greatly subsidized??
So long as people ultimately have the option to buy a computer and software outright and not have ongoing usage fees whats the problem?
Microsoft has come up with NOTHING new. They saw the “Tivo” and they WANTED IT!!! But in the form of their software, since they aren’t in the PC making business. So this approach will be like turn PCes in Tivos. Or rather Peevos. You’ll be peeved at them just as much. But you’ll have to pay a monthly fee to continue to be peeved at them. And there will be even less financial incentive for Microsoft to update and fix its OS’s problems. Since they’ll be getting a renewal fee, anyway, regardless of whether they do anything or not!
Of course some alternative OS might come to the foreground to fill the gap, if M$ takes this approach. That’s why M$ will have to work with the PC and device makers to keep all the driver info proprietary and secret, between them. And don’t depend on Congress passing some law to free up driver code. They’ll bail out of protecting free computing, at the wave of a lobbyist’s dollar bill!
Hmmm… So maybe we’ll eventually get “free” basic broadband in the US. But we’ll end up paying thru the nose, usage fees for anything that connects up to it. Yeah, that’s how these things always work out.
Is it just me, or does Ballmer look like Al Capone in that picture?
This marketing model certainly worked for cell phones but isn’t it WAY too late for PCs?
When PCs were $1,500 or $2,000 I might have considered such a program — but when you can pick one up for $400, how steeply can they discount it?
More likely to work is if the cable or phone companies, give away a free media PC with a broadband connection and a one-year contract.
Didn’t the “Free PC” segment of the dotcom boom establish prior art? I guess they just charged a monthly fee instead of metering your bandwidth. I still don’t see how this patent is defensible.
There are plenty of sheeple out there to shear, and M$ knows it. What the hell, there’s room in this market for lots of alternatives. But if M$ thinks they’re going to use monopolistic strong-arm techniques to force the entire market to this model, they are very, very, mistaken.
Another stunningly bad, outdated concept from Microsoft. Meanwhile Apple keeps on intuiting what consumers would really like to have – and producing it – and selling it.
Certainly no prior art on this is there?
Seems to me, even when desktop units were running upwards of a thousand bucks, companies had a hard time with similar business models.
Not only should this not be patented, as it simply retreads previous marketing attempts, but should a gimmick like this really be patentable at all?