Microsoft Files Patent for 'Pay-as-you-Go' Computing

[fitbabits]

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a390/fitbabits/Logos/microsoft-logo.jpg


According to patent number 20080319910, filed on June 21, 2007 and published on Christmas day, Microsoft is actively investigating a new pay-as-you-go model for home computing. Microsoft's vision includes the purchase of a heavily subsidized PC which the user would then pay based on length of usage time, and the performance level utilized.

From the abstract:

"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."

"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. 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."

Also included in the abstract is an envisioned three-bundle scenario - gaming, office and browsing:

"The office bundle may include word-processing and spreadsheet applications, medium graphics performance and two of three processor cores. 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."

And there you have it. Good idea? Bad idea?

Source: C|Net, via CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/12/29/microsoft.metered.computing/index.html)

[Johan]

That's a very intriguing idea. I don't think I'd ever be interested, as much as I use my computer and the Internet (I'd go broke with the transaction fees for usage), but some people could potentially find it an attractive option. I mean, after all, there are STILL people who use dial-up!

It almost sounds a bit like "rent-to-own" or "lease-to-own" (not what it is, but sounds somewhat similar). Not for me...

Integral to Microsoft's vision is a security module, embedded in the PC, that would effectively lock the PC to a certain supplier.

THAT sounds very, very bad to me. Locked in = captive market/consumer = higher costs for consumer.

[Lance Uppercut]

If I don't feel like I have control of my own hardware, I don't want it.

[Hemalin]

Sounds like it would work well for internet cafes or one of those gaming centers. I doubt about home computing though.

[Evewalker]

It sounds like a good option for public terminal computing, actually.

[Lekon]

Also sounds like that little security module would be hacked within say.. days our hours, and the pirates would go on their merry way without hourly costs.

How long was it until Vista's Call Home security was hacked?
I'm just not seeing how this is a value for consumers at all. Someone in a slashdot thread brought up the idea of renting software for a short time (He only needed Adobe Photoshop once a year for classes, for a few hours each) which makes sense, but there are free alternatives to all the programs windows might charge you for.

Edit: If they are doing this for public terminals: Ahhh, Okay, that makes sense. If its for home computers I stick by my above thoughts.

[Wraith]

While this won't be a system that will work for every consumer or every business, I wouldn't dismiss it outright.

The questions that come to mind are...

If you allow scalable performance, won't most consumers just get a high-powered machine, even if they rarely, if ever, take advantage of that capability? Will grandparents be receiving machines with quad-core processors, 1TB+ hard drives and $500 graphics cards because it costs them little or nothing more up front, even if they'll only be using the lowest performance mode? Won't this increase hardware costs and power usage overall (even if the consumer isn't paying for the hardware directly)?
Does the consumer own this hardware, or is it rented like a cable/satellite box?
This won't really make sense to someone who doesn't need much performance, but uses their system frequently. $1.00/hr * 365 days * about 2 hrs/day = $730/yr / 12 mo/yr = $60.83/mo.

[MagGnome]

This type of thing is already in use on public computers. If, for example, I go down to Kinkos and use the computers there, I will be charged by the minute.

This is hardly a new idea.

As for home usage, I don't see a market for this whatsoever. This type of thing already exists more or less in the different levels of hardware available. Just want to surf the net and maybe type a few papers? Buy a Netbook for around $300. Want a bit more power? Spend 5-600 on something a bit more mid-range. Want to play the latest games? Drop a lot of dough for a pre-built gaming rig or build one yourself for a lot less.

Really, what's the value in this? Computers are already super cheap, and public computers that charge by the hour/minute are already out there in a lot of places. I guess I don't see what the point of this patent is, and I certainly don't think it has any real world practicality.

[Spigot]

If they had a scheme where you pay $X per month (or year) for a given set up (say, SCREAMIN' DEMON GAMIN' PC) and can swap it in for a better 'model' without having to pay more, thereby obviating the usual major costs for PC upgrades...

Well, it would be tempting for a large part of the population who just doesn't want to have to keep chasing the upgrade train.

The ability to upgrade as part of the subscription model would be the only thing that would interest me and that would also have to assume that the price was low enough.

[Telefrog]

Really, what's the value in this? Computers are already super cheap, and public computers that charge by the hour/minute are already out there in a lot of places. I guess I don't see what the point of this patent is, and I certainly don't think it has any real world practicality.

Think of less robust economies. Think South America. Africa. China. India.

Hell, South Korea uses this model on a daily basis with their PC cafes.

[Hemalin]

Really, what's the value in this? Computers are already super cheap, and public computers that charge by the hour/minute are already out there in a lot of places. I guess I don't see what the point of this patent is, and I certainly don't think it has any real world practicality.
Scalability it sounds like. The ability to charge different prices based on usage.

I can't fathom a use for this besides public terminals and it's not like people will be using them for more than basic browsing anyway so a price scale seems pointless.

[Mike Kelehan]

So, you're saying I'll be able to get a $400 computer, get a hack from a torrent site, and unlock a $2000 computer? Sold?

[Alkanos]

So, you're saying I'll be able to get a $400 computer, get a hack from a torrent site, and unlock a $2000 computer? Sold?
Actually, you'll probably need a hardware hack, doubt software would be able to get in. So get out that soldering iron! :D

[MagGnome]

Think of less robust economies. Think South America. Africa. China. India.

Hell, South Korea uses this model on a daily basis with their PC cafes.

I understand that, but that model already exists, as you said. What is MS offering here that is actually new?

I guess I don't understand what MS is bringing to the table with this patent. It sounds to me like they are trying to patent something that already exists.


Scalability it sounds like. The ability to charge different prices based on usage.

I can't fathom a use for this besides public terminals and it's not like people will be using them for more than basic browsing anyway so a price scale seems pointless.

I guess that is the one difference here, but like you I don't see much of a point to it, especially on public computers.

[biosc1]

Also sounds like that little security module would be hacked within say.. days our hours, and the pirates would go on their merry way without hourly costs.


Exactly what I was thinking.

It's an interesting model. The main issue is upgrades...will there be the ability to trade in when more powerful hardware is wanted? Will there be different yearly releases? If using an older model, will it come at a reduced price because you can't get the same "bang for the buck" as a newer model?

[MagGnome]

So, you're saying I'll be able to get a $400 computer, get a hack from a torrent site, and unlock a $2000 computer? Sold?

It might be like rent-to-own, so you'll get a $600 computer for $1200! What a deal! :D

[bean]

Wow. People are going to get screwed by this.

[Gorvi]

That is an awful, awful idea.

[fitbabits]

Wow. People are going to get screwed by this.
Why don't you make a poll about it in an effort to see just how screwed. ;)

[agentgray]

If I wanted to play a game at full specs for a month or two, sure, why not.

It it was there for ALL my computing, Microsoft can suck it.

[Orca]

Sounds like a precursor to remote computing, where all you really have is a monitor and keyboard on your end and are accessing 'power' based somewhere else.

[Superman's Dead]

I read this, fell back asleep, and then basically had a dream that the world was ending.

I've never had a state of the art computer, and I don't mind. I like feeling that property is mine.

[Goronmon]

Wait, can someone explain to be how you "patent" something like this?

[Everyone vs Dinosaurs]

Sounds terrible to me.

[BabyJesus]

Linux here I come...

[Telefrog]

I understand that, but that model already exists, as you said. What is MS offering here that is actually new?

I guess I don't understand what MS is bringing to the table with this patent. It sounds to me like they are trying to patent something that already exists.


Don't just think about public PCs. Home use PCs in economies with less robust consumer spending for electronics like South America are a prime market for this.

[MagGnome]

Don't just think about public PCs. Home use PCs in economies with less robust consumer spending for electronics like South America are a prime market for this.

I guess....


To be honest I'm very skeptical of this. It sounds like something that is ripe for abuse, I also don't have a whole lot of faith in Microsoft.

[Telefrog]

I guess....


To be honest I'm always nervous when it comes to Microsoft. They don't exactly have the greatest track record, and I'm afraid that something like this would be really abused. Maybe it would work well in third world countries, but I can't say one way or another.

Oh, I have no doubt it will be abused anyway. :D

[Alkanos]

It all depends on how much they charge per hour, how much you intend to use it, and how much of a discount you'd get on the hardware.

For example, say they cut hardware costs to you by 90%. And assume the $1.25 an hour for gaming that they mention in the patent app. Lastly, assume someone who games about 10-15 hours a week (about two hours a night). Using those numbers, you'd end up paying about $850-$1100 a year for a near bleeding edge gaming PC that stays bleeding edge. And just because you have this nice gaming rig that you have to pay to use, it doesn't mean you can't have a separate non pay-to-use one for standard web browsing, flash games, etc.

Considering that if you don't know your hardware enough to build it yourself, a high end PC can easily cost you more than $2000. Granted, if you know your stuff this isn't really a good deal, but for some people it could be great.

Now, the web browsing/office options aren't nearly as good a deal. You can get a PC capable of doing those things for $200-$300. For it to be worthwhile for browsing, the cost per hour would have to be more like $0.25. And they want to charge $0.75? Rip off!

[KingGorilla]

Wait, can someone explain to be how you "patent" something like this?

The short answer is because the companies already operating under this business model for software services have not patented it. The long answer, Microsoft saw that this older than E-dirt idea was not patented, snatched it up and probably plans to have their legal dogs let loose.

[Hemalin]

Don't just think about public PCs. Home use PCs in economies with less robust consumer spending for electronics like South America are a prime market for this.
You can get capable computers for a couple hundred bucks. If that is too pricey for a household, how are they going to be able to afford $60 a month?

[KingGorilla]

Don't just think about public PCs. Home use PCs in economies with less robust consumer spending for electronics like South America are a prime market for this.

Free and open source?

[Telefrog]

You can get capable computers for a couple hundred bucks. If that is too pricey for a household, how are they going to be able to afford $60 a month?

Because

a) It's microtransaction X per use/hour. This is a very successful business model. Especially in lower discretionary income economies. When people pay in small chunks, they tend to actually spend more than they would for a comparable product in one shot. From a business standpoint, it makes a lot of sense especially if you're trying to really secure that demographic for the future.

b) A low range PC (not even mid-range) is most definitely not just a couple hundred bucks in many parts of the world. Even so, a couple hundred US dollars would be outrageously extravagant in those countries. Home PC ownership is as unthinkable to the common person in some countries as telling you or I to go buy an airplane. This would actually put PC access within their reach.

c) Theoretically, they wouldn't use it as much as us internet nerds do. The idea is to give internet information/communication access via subsidized PCs to people that normally wouldn't be able to afford it. (I'm not saying that MS is a charity, they obviously have a monetizing strategy - see "a" above.)

[KingGorilla]

In many, dare I say most, foreign nations cost is not the overriding barrier to home computer usage. In southern Asian nations there are people dropping hundreds a year in cafes on MMO titles, competitive FPS titles, RTS, etc(lot of three letter abbreviations). It is an issue of infrastructure that keeps home computers, televisions, appliances out of these areas. You are speaking about areas of the world without running water, clean water period, let alone electricity and communication infrastructure.
I sincerely doubt this is the market for this "new" Microsoft model.

[MagGnome]

Oh, I have no doubt it will be abused anyway. :D

We are on the same page then. :D

[Telefrog]

In many, dare I say most, foreign nations cost is not the overriding barrier to home computer usage. In southern Asian nations there are people dropping hundreds a year in cafes on MMO titles, competitive FPS titles, RTS, etc(lot of three letter abbreviations). It is an issue of infrastructure that keeps home computers, televisions, appliances out of these areas. You are speaking about areas of the world without running water, clean water period, let alone electricity and communication infrastructure.
I sincerely doubt this is the market for this "new" Microsoft model.

Wait, South Korea has a communication or power infrastructure problem? That would be news to me since I have family there. Sure, there are less-developed areas of the country, but the same could be said about the US Ozarks.

Also, cell phones have done gangbusters in third world economies. Why? Infrastructure skip. Rather than go from no communications, to building phone lines, then building cell towers like we have, countries with less than ideal phone systems have been able to skip the middle steps and go straight to the cheaper towers and cell phones.

Why not go the OLPC route and have a wireless shared network?

I'm pretty sure MS has a strategy.

[Chaos Machine]

Actually, you'll probably need a hardware hack, doubt software would be able to get in. So get out that soldering iron! :D

if it autheticates via internet you can just spoof an authentication server, hardwarewha?

[bean]

Why don't you make a poll about it in an effort to see just how screwed. ;)
Only if you make a poll about it that doesn't contain the most popular responses as answers. ;)

Btw, if you haven't noticed. I pretty much abandoned the User Coggies. Only 13 votes after 24 hours = people don't care. So why should I?

[astranoir]

Only if you make a poll about it that doesn't contain the most popular responses as answers. ;)

Btw, if you haven't noticed. I pretty much abandoned the User Coggies. Only 13 votes after 24 hours = people don't care. So why should I?

Aw, I'm sure people care. I voted! I think it could have gotten lost in the holiday shuffle, though.

[fitbabits]

Only if you make a poll about it that doesn't contain the most popular responses as answers. ;)

Btw, if you haven't noticed. I pretty much abandoned the User Coggies. Only 13 votes after 24 hours = people don't care. So why should I?
Heh! It's all good... No hard feelings. :)