backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 46 comment(s) - last by MrBlastman.. on Dec 30 at 1:44 PM
Microsoft patent proposes free computers in exchange for per-use fees

Today when you need a computer, you go out and buy one that meets your needs. Often the machine you end up with is a compromise between the performance you need or want and the budget you have for the system. Users often find that their computer needs change over time and the system they purchased no longer meets their needs.

A patent application filed by Microsoft was published last week (patent number 20080319910) that details what it sees as the future of computing from a consumer's standpoint. In Microsoft’s future, the user would be given a computer free of charge or at a greatly reduced price.

In exchange for the free or discounted computer system, which is presumably packed with all of the performance available, the user would pay a per-use fee to the company providing the PC along with some sort of one-time charge.

CNET News reports that Microsoft says in the patent application that the cost for using the pay-per-use method to obtain a computer would make it more expensive over the lifetime for a consumer than simply buying a computer.

Microsoft wrote in the patent application, "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 and that presumably correspond to the task or tasks being performed."

One of the core components of the pay-per-use future that Microsoft envisions is a security module that locks the PC to the supplier making the machine very secure and guaranteeing the providers investment in the system.

Microsoft writes, "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."

Microsoft says that the method outlined in its patent application would allow a more granular approach to hardware and software sales. The method would make computers more profitable for providers, but would cost the consumer more money in the end than simply buying their own PC via traditional means.

Proposed pricing methods for the Microsoft system would be something like $1.00 per hour for the office bundle, $1.25 per hour for the gaming bundle and 80 cents per hour for the browsing bundle. Those prices seem very high; a person using the office bundle would pay $8 per day, working out to $40 per week and about $160 per month. For the cost of two months usage, you could buy a basic computer today. This will be the biggest challenge to Microsoft's plan.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Will there be a minimum use?
By darkblueslider on 12/29/2008 10:51:40 AM , Rating: 5
What stops people putting computers in for instance, a holiday home, where they only use it 1 month a year?

Now that wouldn't be very profitable, would it!




RE: Will there be a minimum use?
By Inkjammer on 12/29/2008 10:55:19 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah. I see this being mostly of use for cybercafes, airports, hotels, libraries and other public locations.


RE: Will there be a minimum use?
By MadMan007 on 12/29/2008 11:01:28 AM , Rating: 2
I'd thought of that as well and I'm not so sure. If a consumer is better off buying a PC outright the outlets you mentioned would be as well. The owner of the PC charges money for using it and they'd make less under this business model just like the consumer.


RE: Will there be a minimum use?
By amanojaku on 12/29/2008 11:07:41 AM , Rating: 4
I disagree.

1) Publicly funded institutions (libraries, schools, etc...) get significant discounts on hardware and software. A pay-per-use scheme doesn't work for them because the users don't pay.

2) Cyber cafes, airports, hotels, etc... typically buy stripped down systems, unless the cyber cafes are catering to gamers. The pay-per-use scheme doesn't work for them, either, because the consumer price is usually $2-$3/hour (hotels charge $10-$15 a day,) which doesn't yield much profit over the $0.80-$1.25/hour MS recommends as the charge. Considering other overhead (employees, electricity, rent, etc...) this would cost more.

3) Consumers may be looking for cheaper computers, but most people have credit cards. A pay-per-use scheme doesn't work for them because they are already paying $20-$40 a month on their cards, with the added benefit of owning the equipment for later resale or cannibalization.


RE: Will there be a minimum use?
By MrBlastman on 12/29/2008 12:32:15 PM , Rating: 3
... "Nickel and diming America into poverty, one fee at a time." -- Mr. Blastman

The single largest destructive force to American Wealth in our country right now is not Wall Street, poor government leadership, terrorists, unemployment or [insert favorite problem here], it is the people themselves. The biggest contributor towards the people themselves being that destructive force is - needless spending.

If:

People Spend Money -> Company -> People Spend Money -> Company etc.

You get an endless cycle. In the end, people continue to spend money and when they stop spending that money - what do they have left? Nothing, other than past bill paid notices. Sure, the economy prospers due to money flowing in to the system which then flows back out into consumer pockets through paychecks - at some point though, this spending will dry up due to many different factors and thus, the pay cycle is broken as well. You could argue this is the same for all forms of consumerism.

However, with blatant spending on "services" rather than goods, at the end of cycle if you cease expenditures you really have nothing to show for your fruits (other than perhaps heightened knowledge). You have nothing you can grab, nothing you can feel, nothing you can... "trade" for something else.

No, then money flows:

Money -> Your Pockets -> Company Pockets

Leaving you as a simple link in the sequence. You have depleted your personal wealth for a temporary pleasure. Arguably, these temporary pleasures make sense quite a bit of the time. If, though, you compound those temporary pleasures upon each other and expand the volume of these occurences, you inevitably poke a hole in your chamber pot (because, you really must be deficating money in order to throw it out with such frequency) causing the flow to - well, flow right through your hands and back on to the streets.

If your source - Money in, were to dry up, there would be nothing to fall back on. It is this needless spending on services (which we more often than before need greater than ever) that leads to the deviation from the traditional money/wealth model:

Money -> Your Pockets -> Goods with value -> Your Home

So the transition is complete - the citizen has moved from an:

Accumulator
to
Conduit

So, in reality, we our own worst enemies when it comes to creating poverty. The abundance of services that we have got to have is slowing removing ourselves from our own personal ability to sustain ourselves when the money valve is turned off.

This - pay to compute - offering from Microsoft, is what I would coin as a "Needless service with an apparent need." It is something that people think they need (or really, what Microsoft wants you to think you need) but they really do not, as there are other, albeit depreciating, methods of fulfilling this need over time without a constant expenditure (aka hardware) which will fill the gap in the end when the money faucet stops.

In other words - just buy a darned computer. It will cost you more up front, but in the end, will last you far longer per dollar over time than paying for it monthly will get you.


RE: Will there be a minimum use?
By codeThug on 12/29/2008 3:55:23 PM , Rating: 2
You are absolutely right, and your reward will be a severe down modding as usual.

I have predicted this coming for a few years. L Ron Ballmer and the Microtologists can't make a fat living selling their non stellar products on a piece by piece basis.

They are going to follow the Sprint model of doing business; selling you sch1tty products/services monthly.

It will be just like pure sugar for the koolaid drinking crowd out there. It tastes sweet, but will rot your teeth in the long run.


RE: Will there be a minimum use?
By Screwballl on 12/30/2008 12:31:03 PM , Rating: 2
I think he is confusing basic economics with socialist capitalism.

The more people spend, the better the economy is overall. When the spending slows for whatever reason, there is still the core and essential commodities needed which will help keep at least a baseline economic stature. What some may claim is an essential commodity is not usually the case, such as gasoline/diesel, cable TV, internet access, and so on. During tough economic times people may forgo the car to run to get a few things at the store, they will ride a bike or walk the half mile when they may have driven before. They will turn off the internet and use it at a family members, friends or library.

As this relates to Microsoft's plans, they see the "pay to play" format that is used by game companies, cell phone providers and other services and are experimenting with it in this format. People of course will not go for it. Combine several new options that are out there such as usage caps with the ISP, cloud computing, and other options, this is another way for another company to get more money.

There is a baseline process that people use and like about computers that also pertains to other goods through the millennium: buy it once, use it for years with no other required fees to use it (outside of maintenance).


By MrBlastman on 12/30/2008 1:44:30 PM , Rating: 2
Where is the confusion? None here.

Spend money and receive nothing in physical return = pissing money down the drain

Spend money and receive something physical with worth in return = building your wealth

Not spending money at all = bad

That simplifies it a bit, eh?

Instead of spending money on something that nets you zero in return, you spend it on something that will leave you with something to show for it later - which, if you need to, can be sold for money again.

Services like the one Microsoft is proposing, are adding to the pile of money that is thrown in the trash every day. It is a needless expenditure except under certain circumstances. Circumstances which are special case and do not apply to the majority of people on a daily basis. Ultimately we all have free choice and can make that decision on our own - I simply see it as imprudent to be throwing away money on hourly computer usage, rather than buying one flat out.


They can patent this?
By Bateluer on 12/29/2008 11:00:28 AM , Rating: 3
Seems like 'Pay as you go' is not a new concept. Its not a novelty. It has been done by other businesses across a variety of goods and services.

I have no problem with the concept of renting the computer really, but I don't think MS should be able to patent it. Is their patent for the billing system or something like that?




RE: They can patent this?
By Bateluer on 12/29/2008 11:02:03 AM , Rating: 4
I'd also like to add that I won't rent a PC. I enjoy having the control to install any app I want, download and look at any smut I wish, type, draw, and view what I choose, install nearly any OS I choose, etc.


RE: They can patent this?
By JimCouch on 12/29/2008 11:42:23 AM , Rating: 3
A lot of you are missing the point. I think what MS is patenting is the security system that locks the PC to the vendor not the concept of pay as you go. Also I would think that most vendors would have a minimum use clause since they would retain ownership of the PC after all the system is locked to them. Most likely the plan would come complete with tech support and virus protection etc. Which for some applications would make this very attractive to some consumers.


RE: They can patent this?
By idiotinthebackrow on 12/29/2008 12:13:49 PM , Rating: 2
I think they are saying what if we combine something like VMWare, Play Station 3, and Google Docs on an iPhone like device? Lets make it hard to play fair, shall we?


Marketing
By delfeld on 12/29/2008 2:23:16 PM , Rating: 2
The goal behind this patent is a business model - not a marketing campaign, nor a security model. Most comments so far deal with this.

This is the plan that MS is going to try to sell to consumers. Being as puters already have the model of "planned obsolescence", in 3-5 years, you and all other consumers will be ready for a new computer. At that point, marketing will attempt to sell you the new business model, and, in the meantime, the security model will be tested. This isn't a mom-and-pop organization, despite the miserable failure of Vista, Silverlight, Zune, etc. However, understand that 10 years ago, I would never have considered paying $1.00 per song . Now it is the norm, because the product was enticing.

You, as the universal consumer and as an individual (just to be accurate) are not in control of your own thinking (for example, I know with certainty that that statement will offend you). If that were false, marketing would not work. In previous messages, there are claims to want this or that specific computer setup, but you only want that because you have been convinced prior to this point.

Pretend you are in the time period after you have been convinced to buy this new business model: you will then be fitting it into your budget, planning for the next upgrade, and being concerned that the bill is expensive. But you will not be using any other model, because it will not be available.

The control we do have over this whole process is recognizing what is necessary for existence, and resistance to the idea of consumption in general. But no consumer has that will power - that is the state you are in, and this is why this idea in the patent is able to work. As long as you want the newest, the best, the current, etc., MS has you by the balls.




RE: Marketing
By TomZ on 12/29/2008 2:38:55 PM , Rating: 3
Sorry, that is a load of crap. Marketing informs, it does not command. There are tons of examples of companies pushing products and services that get shunned by consumers and untimately fail. And there are lots of companies looking for opportunities to correct such failures.


RE: Marketing
By delfeld on 12/29/2008 4:57:22 PM , Rating: 1
Tomz, what you wrote that is not a disproof of my statement. You only show that marketing can fail (that is, that it does not work 100% of the time). It does not disprove that the intent of marketing is control; nor does it disprove that people can be manipulated by marketing.

Why can marketing fail? Well, people are not controlled arbitrarily by any ad, campaign, slogan, etc. There are ways which the brain can be short-circuited, and if the advertisement does not correctly use those channels, then it fails to control.

It's not magic, but it's also not arbitrary. And there are ways to not be controlled, but that requires critical thinking and a willingness to "go against the crowd."

Mostly, though, knowledge is freedom; this starts with the realization that one's thinking can be wrong, ignorant, uninformed, etc., and that others (especially authorities) can be, also. You, Tomz, are caught up in the crowd-think as well; you simultaneously consciously deny and unwittingly prove that marketing controls.


RE: Marketing
By TomZ on 12/29/2008 9:38:02 PM , Rating: 2
LOL, nice try. Crap on top of crap - kind of like a crap sandwich.

Have a nice day!


arggg
By MrPoletski on 12/29/2008 11:24:50 AM , Rating: 2
sorry, but can you please lose the little popup window ads they are a frikkin nightmare, you scroll and open 5 and then blarggg.. totally lost my place.




RE: arggg
By bigboxes on 12/29/2008 12:28:20 PM , Rating: 2
Firefox + Adblock = Bliss


RE: arggg
By abscoder on 12/29/2008 1:17:10 PM , Rating: 3
In IE, click on tools, internet options, click the security tab and highlight restricted sites. Click on the sites button and add "*.intellitxt.com" and "*.vibrantmedia.com" to the restricted list.


Epic fail
By amanojaku on 12/29/2008 10:51:19 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
CNET News reports that Microsoft says in the patent application that the cost for using the pay-per-use method to obtain a computer would make it more expensive over the lifetime for a consumer than simply buying a computer.


I thought MS was going to say the machine was free (or heavily discounted) and you had to be on the Internet to connect to the billing service. This isn't like a pay-per-use cell phone plan that's competing with flat rate plans. Who the heck is going to pay for use when two-to-three month's of usage could pay for a whole new computer that could last two-to-three years with no recurring fees? Am I missing something?




RE: Epic fail
By MadMan007 on 12/29/2008 10:56:33 AM , Rating: 2
There are people who do rent-to-own :shrug: at least they end up owning it though.


RE: Epic fail
By foolsgambit11 on 12/29/2008 5:13:58 PM , Rating: 2
If you combine this with a service, like internet, and bill based on minutes or hours used, then it starts to make sense. If you get a nettop from an ISP - who perhaps has switched to a business model where you pay for what you use, not by the month - then it starts to look like the cell phone market in the U.S. Upfront hardware costs are absorbed by the service provider to reduce the barriers to entry.

Or - heaven forbid - what if the 'gaming' PC they are talking about is the successor to the xBox 360. Or maybe even the xBox 360 with a different OS to track usage. The hardware vendor is then Microsoft. They would be able to outprice Nintendo for console entry costs, and could recoup their losses through ongoing usage fees, which could include a xBox Live Gold membership.


I must be missing something
By nvalhalla on 12/29/2008 2:32:53 PM , Rating: 2
I get the computer for free/low cost. They record how much I use said computer. End of the month I get a bill. Am I following this right?

Why wouldn't I, upon receiving the computer, remove the monitoring device, wipe the HDD, install Linux/Windows and use the computer to my hearts content, never paying anything? How exactly would they stop this?




RE: I must be missing something
By TomZ on 12/29/2008 2:41:05 PM , Rating: 2
Because you will have signed a contract stating terms and conditions for the use of the computer.

It is no different than other consumer contracts, such as when you rent or lease a car. Think you can do whatever you want with the car? Nope, think again.


RE: I must be missing something
By Chocobollz on 12/30/2008 12:25:32 AM , Rating: 2
I think this is where the NGSCB or TPM (codename Palladium) would be used, which if it's true, they will have *almost* total controls of your computer, or should I say, theirs? :-)


Not Exactly Cost Effective
By mmntech on 12/29/2008 10:58:07 AM , Rating: 2
It's a dumb idea considering how little you can get a barebones system for these days, as the article points out. Most people will use their home computer for an hour or two a day, so that's $365 to $730 per year. You can buy a cheap Dell desktop with monitor for about $500, and it's yours to own. This makes sense for places like airports and hotels but not for home or office. However, it's the WoW effect. Software publishers know they can make more charging monthly fees than a one time sale of a boxed copy.




RE: Not Exactly Cost Effective
By wempa on 12/30/2008 12:48:18 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. Let's also not forget that people who can't afford the $500 Dell can almost always scrounge up money for an older, used PC and probably get a tube monitor for free. I had trouble GIVING away my 21" tube monitor and I always seem to have last generation PCs around after I upgrade. I seriously doubt that there are too many people in a position where they need a PC but can't find a cost-effective way to get one. As others have pointed out, maybe this could work in public places, but I can't see it going much further than that.


The True Future of Computers
By Dharl on 12/29/2008 11:34:20 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Proposed pricing methods for the Microsoft system would be something like $1.00 per hour for the office bundle, $1.25 per hour for the gaming bundle and 80 cents per hour for the browsing bundle. Those prices seem very high; a person using the office bundle would pay $8 per day, working out to $40 per week and about $160 per month. For the cost of two months usage, you could buy a basic computer today. This will be the biggest challenge to Microsoft's plan .


No Joke... the biggest challenge is an understatement. You would have to provide the user with something far more valueable than their own personal computer.

Personally, I see the future for consumer computing as something similar to cloud computing....

First: You would have to provide a user with some type of a interface that features no hardware that could be corrupted by means of viruses. IE: Something like a thin client.

Second: The users data would have to be backed up on a regular basis, but with the option to delete sensitive data permanentally as well as their backups. IE: Browse history, Documents, Pictures.

By doing this two things you would provide the consumer with piece of mind. By not having any true Hardware at their house they would not be afraid of "breaking" the expensive computer. They also would not have to fear viruses or data loss since the company in question would have to provide that security. Finally the only thing the consumer would need would be an Internet Connection (broadband to be useful), thin client hardware (monitor, mouse, keyboard, box to connect to servers), and finally pay a monthly fee to the company.

To me that's the future of consumer computing. That is of course... for the consumers who don't know the difference between their Computer and their Modem.




RE: The True Future of Computers
By Chocobollz on 12/29/2008 1:38:41 PM , Rating: 2
Just my thoughts, I guess why is the PC (an IBM PC) are so popular? It is because you can do *anything* on it, the IBM PC is one of the computer system that gives you a lot of freedom. It's also the primary reason why Apple can't go mainstream, because they're a closed system; if you go with Apple, you basically tied with them. Yes, it have several advantages compared to an open system but remember, *freedom* is an important things. No one likes to buy something they don't own.

quote:
First: You would have to provide a user with some type of a interface that features no hardware that could be corrupted by means of viruses. IE: Something like a thin client.


I disagree. *Everything* could be hacked. Even your body could be hacked :p If your data is stored on a remote computer, basically, it even easier to be hacked. I know the probability is small, but I think it's still bigger than if you put your sensitive data on a removable-media and take it anywhere you go but then, like I said, someone could hack your body and steal your data :p

quote:
Second: The users data would have to be backed up on a regular basis, but with the option to delete sensitive data permanentally as well as their backups. IE: Browse history, Documents, Pictures.


Ok.. what if.. you accidentaly deleted your data? Can you tell me how you recover that data, if the server is very secure like you want it? 1 principle, the more secure your data is, the more difficult it's to be obtained by anyone, be it a thieves, or you yourself. That's why I don't use anything better than FAT32 on my HDD (like the.. NTFS or the likes), because according to my own experiences, it is *almost* impossible to recover the lost data, if something goes wrong. With FAT32, I could restore the lost data just in a few minutes (or hours). Well, you can of course send the harddrive to a specialist, but I'm sure you don't want to be charged an arm & leg only to recover your pr0n collection, don't you? :p


What I would support
By FITCamaro on 12/29/2008 12:11:03 PM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't mind a very cheap initial cost of Windows followed by yearly "maintenance" fees paid in order to provide updates. Make Windows $25(Home), $50(Business), and $75(Ultimate). Then charge say a $20 a year fee in order to receive updates. This lowers the cost of the PC initially. And if you don't want to pay for updates you don't have to.

Over 5 years this works out to $105 for Home, $130 for business, and $155 for Ultimate. So for Home users its the same but its much cheaper for Business and Ultimate owners.




RE: What I would support
By haukionkannel on 12/29/2008 3:05:31 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is that MS wants to make new Windows about every 3 years...
So you have to put todays prize to 3 years period.
So cost per year will be much, much bigger than you expect. I supose that it will be free to get and every year you pay something like: Home: 40$, Busines: 60$ and Ultimate: 80$. So after 3 years you pay 120$, 180$ or 240$ and keep on paying... even you don't want to to upgrade... Like some people did when Vista did come out...
They want to get more money, not less...
Hmmm... It seems to be that my estimate to annual fee, is allso too low...
How much those windows versions actually cost? Just divide the prize by 3 and add something like 20%... You will get what you have to pay per year, if this ever comes true... I supose to see a lot of people to stuck with older windows and Linux if it ever come true...


More Frustration??
By jhb116 on 12/29/2008 12:29:57 PM , Rating: 2
Imagine this - someone pays the rental fee on such a system. They work for days on a research paper which this rental system just eats up - wasting all of the effort on the paper. Frustrated person tries to get someone to help, but the help system, in the state they are currently in, aren't very helpful at all. To add salt to the wound - the now very frustrated person still has to pay for all that "rental" time. Something inside them snaps - they get a gun and go on a killing spree pertaining to said rental system. Then Jack Thompson, being the opportunistic A$$ he is, conveniently blames the incident on GTA even though the said individual never played GTA. Such is the way of life.

Seriously - computers need to get alot more stable before this is possible.




RE: More Frustration??
By Shmak on 12/29/2008 10:37:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Frustrated person tries to get someone to help, but the help system, in the state they are currently in, aren't very helpful at all.


Since you'd actually be paying for waiting for your help it doesn't really behoove the provider to come to your aid at all. The longer they have you tied to the system hoping to reach someone, the more money they get.

There are a ton of ways the provider could abuse this system. I'm absolutely positive that Microsoft would also cook up some EULA that would protect them totally in the situation mentioned here. Not to mention the fact that said EULA would probably make you agree to allow MS to see your files in certain situations. Or make you agree that MS is part owner of everything you create using their "service" or other equally ridiculous things. This whole thing opens up virtual property rights issues.


By Denithor on 12/29/2008 11:25:35 AM , Rating: 3
The one benefit would be from having a system that's always current enough to handle whatever you throw at it. Looking at the gaming system, for example, they would theoretically have to provide you with a $1000-1500 machine loaded with high end gear to handle all of today's most demanding games (otherwise exactly zero people will be interested). But that system won't run next year's blockbusters well enough so they would have to upgrade or replace it at some point.

Business & personal general use systems wouldn't be as critical for refreshes but would still have to happen at some point.

How will they guarantee that your saved data (and in the case of business machines, critical & confidential data) is transfered securely & intact to your new/refreshed system?




Limewire
By bradshannon on 12/29/2008 10:46:19 AM , Rating: 2
I foresee hacks within 1 week of release of this system that will allow full use.




As even the patent says...
By MadMan007 on 12/29/2008 10:59:06 AM , Rating: 2
This is silly, if computers go the way of the cell phone I'll be very unhappy, only a fool would use this plan at anything approaching the proposed rates. Of course PC hardware and software makers look with envy toward the monthly subscription service business models, everyone does, but it's usually not a preferred model for the consumer.




Model makes more sense with Cloud
By Fnoob on 12/29/2008 11:10:26 AM , Rating: 2
As others have pointed out, charging more than the computer is worth for a years usage just doesn't make good financial sense for the consumer. There would definitely need to be a maximum daily rate to prevent, say, an outrageous bill from a teenager sending half a million text messages a day.

On the other hand, if this 'appliance' connected to the web via fiber to a host facility running multiple supercomputers - then it might make financial sense. Access to Cray or IBM BlueGene(?) supercomputers (making even the most expensive home workstation look pitiful) for a few bucks a day would be well worth it.




anyone surprised?
By tastyratz on 12/29/2008 11:30:36 AM , Rating: 2
Windows Blackcomb was originally supposed to be a monthly charge while being a free/low cost initial purchase. Longhorn was supposed to be a quicker initial spinoff of blackcomb. I guess they just figured why rent the software when you can just rent the whole thing?




check the patent
By monkeyfoot on 12/29/2008 12:43:07 PM , Rating: 2
If you look at the patent application itself this makes more sense (the link is in the story). It might be reasonable in a corporate environment where different users have very different computing needs: graphic artists need lots of graphics power; engineers need different processing power; salespeople don't need much of either but might need specialized communications programs. In the corporate environment it might be that shaving a few cents/hr here and there could add up.

Otherwise, the idea doesn't make much sense at all for individuals who know what they want and don't want Microsoft, or any other company, limiting, metering or otherwise messing around with their lives. I imagine the dollar figures quoted are just examples, but the patent application certainly seems pretty far reaching. That's not a big surprise, is it?




wtf?
By Murloc on 12/29/2008 1:57:46 PM , Rating: 2
how can they use this "idea"?
it's just useless.




This model was tried, failed
By androticus on 12/30/2008 12:40:58 AM , Rating: 2
This business model, in a simpler form, was already tried, and went nowhere. About maybe 10 years ago or so now, you could get either a free or really cheap PC -- the only catch was that part of the screen was permanently devoted to ads. It never caught on.

Also, as others have pointed out, it is shameful what can be patented these days -- I mean, c'mon... the "cheap hardware, pay as you go" idea is really just a form of renting or leasing, and we have that in many areas, especially in cell phones, where you pay a low up-front fee then essentially pay for the phone through monthly fees. Or video games, where the console is subsidized and you pay royalties for each game. Etc.




Devil is in the details
By soxfan on 12/30/2008 7:26:03 AM , Rating: 2
"A patent application filed by Microsoft was published last week (patent number 20080319910) . . . ."

This should read "A patent application filed by microsoft was published last week U.S. Pre-Greant Publication No. 2008/0319910)."

I know I'm being picky, but patent prosecution is what I do, and what is stated in the article is factually incorrect.




Own your own idea
By idiotinthebackrow on 12/29/2008 11:59:06 AM , Rating: 1
Duh. MS wants to own another great idea (someone else had first). They may never provide the best solution but that sure creates an opportunity to cause trouble for anyone else doing anything that looks like their idea. Like Novell probably owns the LDAP idea and MS agrees not to sue them... over what? Active Directory, SMB Protocol, web based application service providers... oh thats a new idea alright. Just a bunch of leeches making money off other peoples creative efforts. Perhaps they can beat Sony and Nintendo to it. We will see. What you need to produce.. a connected device on which you can access applications one way or another and you could be in a patent suit with MS.




MS Strategy
By cdoug on 12/29/2008 11:59:28 AM , Rating: 1
This is just Microsoft demonstrating again that it can't
relate to the needs of its computing customers without being in a monopoly position of control where they can set the prices. MS sees its revenue stream shrinking and has come up with so that it can get in chargeing for actual computer use and for providing service. The fact is that
if MS gets too controlling they can be replaced by other
software vendors

For private users of computers this strategy will fall flat. Computers are too inexpensive and people want to do what they want, when they want with their computers.
Unless MS gets in league with the network providers which would definitely be illegal they haven't a chance of gaining the kind of leverage they want. Even business users would just walk away.




PRIVACY!
By JonnyDough on 12/29/2008 7:55:41 PM , Rating: 1
This is just like their cloud computing idea. They want to bypass stubborn ISPs and get a look at everything we're doing. I don't know why Microsoft is so bent on taking away the personal PC and personal storage. I for one certainly do not trust them. Hell, the internet was invented by the military...I think someone is up to something. Safe guard your lives people, your government is to be feared...and it shouldn't be.




More one ridiculous patent.
By greylica on 12/30/2008 7:37:44 AM , Rating: 1
I don´t know why Microsoft waste time to patent a stupid thing like this, the patent systems are already overbloated with dead patents and other stupid things like this.
And more, Sun Microsystems and IBM already rent servers and connections to their database, using a simple browser you can access your enterprise software, and then , they are already doing this kind of business.

Strange, I will patent the sun as mine in the U.S., may be I´ll pass too. :D

Stupid Patents, Stupid Patents, Stupid Patents...




"A lot of people pay zero for the cellphone ... That's what it's worth." -- Apple Chief Operating Officer Timothy Cook









botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki