Microsoft outlines pay-per-use PC vision

darkassain said:

Microsoft has applied for a patent on metered, pay-as-you-go computing.
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."
"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," reads the patent application's abstract. The patent application was filed June 21, 2007.
"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," the abstract continues.
Integral to Microsoft's vision is a security module, embedded in the PC, that would effectively lock the PC to a certain supplier.
"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," the application reads.
'A more granular approach'
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."
Microsoft's proposed model, on the other hand, could "allow a more granular approach to hardware and software sales," the application states, adding that the user "may be able to select a level of performance related to processor, memory, graphics power, etc that is driven not by a lifetime maximum requirement but rather by the need of the moment."
"When the need is browsing, a low level of performance may be used and, when network-based interactive gaming is the need of the moment, the highest available performance may be made available to the user," the document reads. "Because the user only pays for the performance level of the moment, the user may see no reason to not acquire a device with a high degree of functionality, in terms of both hardware and software, and experiment with a usage level that suits different performance requirements."
By way of example, the application posits a situation involving three "bundles" of applications and performance: office, gaming, and browsing.
"The office bundle may include word-processing and spreadsheet applications, medium graphics performance and two of three processor cores," the document reads. "The gaming bundle may include no productivity applications but may include 3D graphics support and three of three processor cores. The browsing bundle may include no productivity applications, medium graphics performance and high-speed network interface."
"Charging for the various bundles may be by bundle and by duration. For example, the office bundle may be $1.00 [68 pence] per hour, the gaming bundle may be $1.25 per hour and the browsing bundle may be $0.80 per hour. The usage charges may be abstracted to 'units/hour' to make currency conversions simpler. Alternatively, a bundle may incur a one-time charge that is operable until changed or for a fixed-usage period," the document reads.
Microsoft's patent application does acknowledge that a per-use model of computing would probably increase the cost of ownership over the PC's lifetime. The company argues in its application, however, that "the payments can be deferred and the user can extend the useful life of the computer beyond that of the one-time purchase machine."
The document suggests that "both users and suppliers benefit from this new business model" because "the user is able to migrate the performance level of the computer as needs change over time, while the supplier can develop a revenue stream business that may actually have higher value than the one-time purchase model currently practiced."
"Rather than suffering through less-than-adequate performance for a significant portion of the life of a computer, a user can increase performance level over time, at a slight premium of payments," the application reads. "When the performance level finally reaches its maximum and still better performance is required, then the user may upgrade to a new computer, running at a relatively low performance level, probably with little or no change in the cost of use."



Microsoft outlines pay-per-use PC vision | Business Tech - CNET News

WOW, looks like a rip to me, for my particular use.

Just a few things to look at, so for example, here is part of what I have and pay out currently...


If I took half my system, and figure it out, I'll pay roughly $6 per hour for 6 to 8 hours personal use, and $2 to $5 for my servers at 24 hours per day on limited access, so thats a lot for me, and I pay $1200 per year for access, and I have about 200 to 1000 in hardware for each pc, and software 400 to 800.

My oldest computer which runs 24 hours per day, re-booting once every 2 or 3 months or when the power goes out, running ME which was upgraded from 98, which was upgraded from 95 originally built in late 96, only having to replace a cpu fan once, and upgrade cd-rom to recorders and added an extra hd, and every slot filled, sort of on the over populated level, barely $500 invested over the 12 years (not counting play time software, combat fs, fs5, fs98, fs 2000, and fs2k2).

Newer pc's I buy the parts on sale, rarely at other times, so maybe $1,100 on a box, $500 screen, but for the base systems, and test systems, $450 on a box, used monitors, as low as $20 for a good sized crt, 19 or 20 inch, never more than $30 for even bigger ones.

I wander just how much more it would cost me this pay as you go method? It appears it would be much more of an expense for me, unless they had a max amount, and that one time charge was once in a life time, and transferable to family when I die...

I would be curious if the access speed was open, like if you had a sudden need for t3 speeds and then only 10k, and sitting only reading a page, are you charged for time when you got the whole page in your browser in a 100th of a second but spent time reading it, like your doing something else and read a little then back and forth, are you charged for the hour or just the page load? Just a few things to think about. If the options are feasable cost wise, or just a major money maker for the bigger companies.

No freaking way. Paying to use your OWN computer?! Screw that. That is the start of a nasty feature.

And i too will run for the hills.

From what i can understand, M$ is trying to play god, once again, in the world of computers.

And i quote from above 'The office bundle may include word-processing and spreadsheet applications, medium graphics performance and two of three processor cores," the document reads. "The gaming bundle may include no productivity applications but may include 3D graphics support and three of three processor cores. The browsing bundle may include no productivity applications, medium graphics performance and high-speed network interface.'

This would then mean that no nOOb would have a chance of learning about the PC and its hardware/software, or infact anyone as to me it looks like M$ want standard run of the mill PC's that only they can repair (you just know there would be some 'crime committed if removed' type sticker will be on the screws.), meaning they would have control over the market, so no more MSI, or GIGABYTE or Palit manufacturers.
No more Quad-core's, good bye octo-core. goodbye Overclocking.

Catch my drift?

And plus, you just know APPLE would jump on this band wagon, and just think what they would charge.

So all i say - M$ 'Get lost' You are not Computer GODS!!!

And thats my .10 pence worth