Submitted by 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.The basic idea is that you can make a computer more affordable to people by eliminating the high-up front cost of a PC and replacing it with a sort of leasing arrangement. This, of course, has been done for years, and it’s never been all that popular because even dumb people are able to figure out that they’ll end up paying $600 for a $300 computer. In almost every case, you’re better off just putting it on a credit card and making payments. But the innovation that Microsoft is trying to patent is that the computer will have a “scalable” capability, and that the user will be able to easily unlock both software-based functionality and hardware-based power as they need it.
In the cloud computing paradigm, this is workable and desirable, because many businesses find that in an early stage of their online app or web site they have long periods of time in which they’re in development and have very modest resource needs, but after they launch, they hope to have rapid uptake and will need to scale up very quickly. With the cloud, they don’t have a buy or lease a lot of powerful servers up front that will mostly sit idle, and don’t have to worry about the pitfalls of bringing new hardware online quickly once they’re successful. The service provider can use new visualization technologies to efficiently share their overall computing resources among all their clients, and everyone’s happy.
At first glance, this Microsoft idea looks very similar. But then you realize that the users of these Microsoft PCs aren’t going to be accessing hardware and software resources over the network and sharing them efficiently with all of the provider’s other customers. What it looks like is they’re going to be getting a powerful gaming PC that’s been crippled and throttled back to allow only basic performance, and if they find they want more power, they’ll be able to unlock it by paying more. It will presumably also have a lot of pre-loaded software that will be able to be accessed as they need it (which isn’t that bad of an idea, considering how cheap disk space is).
But the draw of cloud computing is that you’re not paying for hardware that’s left idle. But in Microsoft’s scenario, you are. For this program to work, all of these PCs need to be powerful enough for the users to grow into them, so they need to be expensive PCs. They’re expensive PCs that in many cases will be allowed to rot and go obsolete without ever being used to their full potential. Where does that make sense? So somebody is going to be paying for those expensive, crippled computers up-front, and guess who will eventually foot the bill? Whatever poor suckers sign up for this program.
The other thing that’s wrong with this idea is that it’s a perversion of the inherent magic of the personal computer. You know, the central idea that made Microsoft the superpower that it is today? The thing that makes PCs great is that they are so flexible that they’ve been put to uses that their makers have never imagined. Hardware and software can be combined and recombined in so many different ways that mind-boggling innovation has brought us new advances in computing that surprise us all every day. These pay-per-use computers, for this program to function as designed, will not be PCs. They won’t be flexible, or open. As a user, you won’t be able to exert any real control over the hardware or software that’s on them. So you’ll be left behind when other PC users are enjoying the fruits of the latest innovations.
Ultimately, most attempts by the computer industry of simplifying or “cheapifying” the computing experience beyond a certain threshold have failed. Dumb terminals and network computers ended up being neither more useful nor cheaper than the PCs they were supposed to replace. I predict that Microsoft’s pay-per-use idea is also doomed for the scrapheap. And good riddance.
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
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
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.
It’s not original at all. IBM, Sun & HP have been selling some form of on demand computing for years.
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
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.
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.
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.
Also, I imagine lean and bloat-free apps would be absent from this “platform”…
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. 🙂 )
http://www.ahajokes.com/cartoon/anykey.jpg
I’ve never found it hard to find the any key. 😛
That link is hilarious!
Thanks!
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
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 …
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.
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.
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.
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.
Charity and compassion are good values, just ask post-ghost Scrooge.
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…
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Only MS could have come up with an idea like this….
ah………no thank you.
-2501
Seriously .. who comes up with this stuff. I thought rent-2-own was bad.
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
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…
It should be patented to make harder for the others to come up with such stupid ideas.
DG
No matter how its put out, it will only succeed if we buy it!
Epic fail.
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 ..
Tinfoil hat, anyone? Don’t want Big Brother to dilute your precious bodily fluids…