Microsoft Outlines Pay-Per-Use PC Vision

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Microsoft has filed for a patent on a pay-per-use system where people would pay to use a computer based on the length of time used and the performance levels utilized. Does this sound like a good idea to anyone? I could maybe see UMPCs going this route but a full sized desktop PC?

"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."
Click to expand...
 
Isn't this what they do when companies lease mainframes or mainframe time? Seems that the model is moving away from this, considering with the internet and cloud computing you may not even know what processor where is doing what...
 
Sounds like the typical cell phone or cable pricing scheme. Wait till they get the bill at the end of the month/day/year??? Wonder how much extra pron :eek: is going to cost? Do you get to use any game at a per whatever price or do you have to go out and buy it, then pay to use windows? Seems like a dead horse out of the gate if you ask me. Far too complicated to put into a pricing scheme if you ask me. But this is M$ after all. :(
 
wow fancy that, I just made a post about evga's PCoIP device that uses teradici's technology to help accomplish just this.

I think the pricing scheme would be simple: pay a monthly fee for certain hardware specs; it's like leasing a computer. And maybe pay reduced prices for 'upgrades'.
 
KingPariah777 said:
Isn't this what they do when companies lease mainframes or mainframe time? Seems that the model is moving away from this, considering with the internet and cloud computing you may not even know what processor where is doing what...
Click to expand...


Hell

look at the ISP.

They do that per server ;)

Add to that the Hyper-V/Vmware and you can rent resources of that one monstreous server to individuals for a set period of time.

VMware allowed monitoring of resources and cost allocation since VMware 3.0 on a per time unit basis!
 
They are doing nothing more than filing a patent to save for use against another company later if they need to. Look at any large IT company, they all have tons of patents they do not use.
 
How many of you would go for this? Even if the computer was free I would still stick with building my own. There is no way I would participate in this.

I guess some people who only use their computers a little bit per day to do mundane tasks might go for it.

Wonder what it would cost per month to run GPU and CPU Folding@Home 24 hours a day 7 days a week on a machine.
 
kdw1975 said:
How many of you would go for this? Even if the computer was free I would still stick with building my own. There is no way I would participate in this.

I guess some people who only use their computers a little bit per day to do mundane tasks might go for it.

Wonder what it would cost per month to run GPU and CPU Folding@Home 24 hours a day 7 days a week on a machine.
Click to expand...

That is because MS is not targeting the home user which is not a big part of thier money making.

They are targeting the Enterprise infrastructure.

The Best Buy's, The Targets, The Walmarts, The 3m's etc.
 
...do you get refunds for Trojans, Virii, and whatever else runs on your computer without your consent?

Does MS get paid for a botnet?
 
This really sounds like the old mainframe processing back in the 60's, 70's, and 80's when you had to pay for computer time. Microsoft itself was probably directly responsible for the demise of the pay-per-process scheme, both in bringing the computing experience out of arcane user-interfaces built for functionality only, and for bringing the computing experience to commodity hardware.

The old pay-per-process scheme wasn't exactly a bad one, especially when only a few corporate or university entities could afford to have a system with meaningful power.

But now? When AMD processors are dirt cheap and scale /really/ well in multi-processor configurations (7 of the top 10 spots on Top 500 SuperComputer list)... and when they combo well with Cell processors (Top Spot on Top 500 SuperComputer list) for extra processing punch?

With Roadrunner already serving as proof of concept of A64+Cell processing power, it's now only a matter of time before it will be possible to be socketing Cell and A64 processors on the same motherboard... oh... and don't forget that Sun is working on a Socketed version of Niagara that's compatible with Socket F / AM3... that's also designed to be socketed alongside an A64 and Cell processor... on the same motherboard... as a co-processor.

The reality is that entities needing mainframe processing power are only 1 or 2 years away from being able to mix and match the best processing designs for the best possible performance mix on the application loads they themselves use... and can already combo two of the leading processor designs, x86 and PowerPC, under one system.

That doesn't bode well for Microsoft because their software... simply can't do that. Microsoft's position in the SuperComputer and High Performance Systems is abysmal... less than 1%.

In fact, the only significant entry Microsoft has in the Top 500 list is the Chinese built system at Shanghai Supercomputer Center... which actually isn't tasked for any significant work.

Microsoft needs a hook then... SOMETHING to get people off of Linux, off of Unix, off of anything else... and looking at Microsoft products in the SuperComputer market.

With Linux having reached the point where it's user-interface is easy to work in and around, with Mepis having pioneered the user-friendly linux desktop distribution back in 2003, coupled with the explosive rise of Netbooks... the abject failure of Vista... and pretty much everything else that happened in the PC industry over 2007 and 2008... Microsoft's current business model of levying a tax on each computer sold is going the way of DEC ALPHA.

It's no secret that Microsoft has had plans since the launch of NT5 to sell people on licensed software and upgrades... not on continuous boxed software. Microsoft has been implementing a structured business model where customers don't actually own the software they use... but lease it from Microsoft, and most continue to pay a tax to Microsoft in order to continue to use that software.

This proposed idea of paying per processing time... is simply an extension of the direction of licensing that Microsoft has been attempting to go-in... or a repeat of a business model from the past.

Either way, it's not a good business model to follow... right now. Apple, Dell, Canonical, HP, Lenovo, Intel, AMD, and pretty much any other vendor that's pushing Non-Microsoft hardware and software... would see it as a golden opportunity to push their lower-cost Linux / Unix systems.
 
How can this not be prior art. It's been done numerous times before.

I guess I just don't understand the US Patent system. Maybe that's by design... Written by lawyers to only be useble/understandable by lawyers.
 
OBVIOUS UNDER THE ART

and

DERIVATIVE, PRIOR ART...

.. PARKING METER, RENTING/LEASING ANYTHING, DIME TOILET

If this is granted, it proves everything I've been saying about the PTO being totally utterly fucked up the ass. Fire EVERYONE and start over with 1979 reg's.
 
hah, saist, I like that: "the abject failure of Vista". Thats exactly what it is too. You need more than a good product to suceed these days microsoft...

but yeah paul thurott said it best, Let IT guys worry about IT, have it all done on someone else's and and just give users the front end. The idea of users defragging and anti-virus-ing and managing registries is pretty obsurd when you think about it. Let an IT guy at microsoft worry about that crap, furthermore in this proposed situation its alot easier to manage to, because its so easy to sandbox... well, actually, I suppose thats only true because todays virus's arnt designed to get out of the sandbox, I suppose if microsoft manages their dream business, they will.

But hey, I'm way the hell ahead of myself here. We, as in north america, have a serious problem: Rural areas are getting totally screwed over here. I mean its disgusting. I'm not expecting telecom companies to supply DSL to rural areas purly out of the goodness of their hearts, but i think we need some legislation to get these people online. IF you can get them municipality supplied water, electricity and even a fancy telephone, you can get them a megabit/sec of internet. (If anyones wondering, no, I'm city slicker, I live in vancouver BC, population 2.5 million).
 
No way, Screw M$, My PCs are mine, You can't tell Me I have to pay extra to use them, I use them when and how I want, Linux would then look really more attractive then. So this is a non starter. :mad: :mad: :mad:

So drop Dead whoever thought of this Stupid idea.. As It makes M$ look like a Thief... :mad:

Hopefully It wasn't Balmy that thought of It. :p
 
Jack Hammer said:
...do you get refunds for Trojans, Virii, and whatever else runs on your computer without your consent?

Does MS get paid for a botnet?
Click to expand...

Why would you? They're not the idiots that got themselves infected. If there was a problem on a level below the VM, then yes, I'd say they're responsible for that. Why the hell would they be held responsible for the idiot that gets his virtualOS infected with a virus? Besides, if OSes are virtual they're pretty easy to refresh.
 
Seems to me MS is gearing up for the next, next version of Windows which will be entirely run off the internet (thin-client) on a cloud of servers in data centers around the globe.

They're already moving towards Office being entirely online (that's why 2007 is XML enabled) so the leap to an entire OS online isn't much of a stretch.
 
Saist said:
<snip>..... and pretty much everything else that happened in the PC industry over 2007 and 2008... Microsoft's current business model of levying a tax on each computer sold is going the way of DEC ALPHA.

It's no secret that Microsoft has had plans since the launch of NT5 to sell people on licensed software and upgrades... not on continuous boxed software. Microsoft has been implementing a structured business model where customers don't actually own the software they use... but lease it from Microsoft, and most continue to pay a tax to Microsoft in order to continue to use that software.

This proposed idea of paying per processing time... is simply an extension of the direction of licensing that Microsoft has been attempting to go-in... or a repeat of a business model from the past.
Click to expand...

This.

MrWizard6600 said:
but yeah paul thurott said it best, Let IT guys worry about IT, have it all done on someone else's and and just give users the front end. The idea of users defragging and anti-virus-ing and managing registries is pretty obsurd when you think about it. Let an IT guy at microsoft worry about that crap, furthermore in this proposed situation its alot easier to manage to, because its so easy to sandbox... well, actually, I suppose thats only true because todays virus's arnt designed to get out of the sandbox, I suppose if microsoft manages their dream business, they will.
Click to expand...

No thanks. I like the idea of owning whats on that disc I just bought. I'd rather not fall victim to microsoft's plan that would have me paying for windows vista, when I'm still using windows xp. I paid for it once and only once regardless of how long I use it, and thats the way its going to stay or I go elsewhere for my OS.

Nemesis999 said:
Why would you? They're not the idiots that got themselves infected. If there was a problem on a level below the VM, then yes, I'd say they're responsible for that. Why the hell would they be held responsible for the idiot that gets his virtualOS infected with a virus? Besides, if OSes are virtual they're pretty easy to refresh.
Click to expand...

Does it make you feel nice and special when you call other people idiots repeatedly? Feels good huh? Yea, you're definitely superior to everyone now! Congratulations!

blackrino9 said:
Seems to me MS is gearing up for the next, next version of Windows which will be entirely run off the internet (thin-client) on a cloud of servers in data centers around the globe.

They're already moving towards Office being entirely online (that's why 2007 is XML enabled) so the leap to an entire OS online isn't much of a stretch.
Click to expand...


That whole idea is laughable at best for the next 10 years. With Time Warner fucking with my connection so much that I can't even hit my full download speed without using a download manager (to get extra connections to the same download) or watch video on Hulu.com without it having to buffer, this cloud computing crap is retarded. And, thats not even taking into account the fact that Microsoft is trying to rob you of your ability to own a copy of software you just purchased.
 
Kristofff said:
No thanks. I like the idea of owning whats on that disc I just bought. I'd rather not fall victim to microsoft's plan that would have me paying for windows vista, when I'm still using windows xp. I paid for it once and only once regardless of how long I use it, and thats the way its going to stay or I go elsewhere for my OS.
Click to expand...

Say what?

you don't own what is on that disc. That is Microsoft IP (Intellectual Property). All you own is the CD/DVD and a LICENSE to run the software that is on the CD/DVD, on your computer. That is it. You do not own the IP rights to XP/2003/2008/Vista/Windows 7. You do not own trademark to aforementioned property either. All you own is a LICENSE to run the software and that is it.
 
figgie said:
Say what?

you don't own what is on that disc. That is Microsoft IP (Intellectual Property). All you own is the CD/DVD and a LICENSE to run the software that is on the CD/DVD, on your computer. That is it. You do not own the IP rights to XP/2003/2008/Vista/Windows 7. You do not own trademark to aforementioned property either. All you own is a LICENSE to run the software and that is it.
Click to expand...

Potato PotAto. My point is, they can't turn my disc off because I'm not paying a subscription. I can install that disc on my PC until the end of time, should I choose to. I didn't mean to imply that I owned the actual operating system, just the disc and a timeless license.
 
Saist said:
This really sounds like the old mainframe processing back in the 60's, 70's, and 80's when you had to pay for computer time. Microsoft itself was probably directly responsible for the demise of the pay-per-process scheme, both in bringing the computing experience out of arcane user-interfaces built for functionality only, and for bringing the computing experience to commodity hardware.

The old pay-per-process scheme wasn't exactly a bad one, especially when only a few corporate or university entities could afford to have a system with meaningful power.

But now? When AMD processors are dirt cheap and scale /really/ well in multi-processor configurations (7 of the top 10 spots on Top 500 SuperComputer list)... and when they combo well with Cell processors (Top Spot on Top 500 SuperComputer list) for extra processing punch?

With Roadrunner already serving as proof of concept of A64+Cell processing power, it's now only a matter of time before it will be possible to be socketing Cell and A64 processors on the same motherboard... oh... and don't forget that Sun is working on a Socketed version of Niagara that's compatible with Socket F / AM3... that's also designed to be socketed alongside an A64 and Cell processor... on the same motherboard... as a co-processor.

The reality is that entities needing mainframe processing power are only 1 or 2 years away from being able to mix and match the best processing designs for the best possible performance mix on the application loads they themselves use... and can already combo two of the leading processor designs, x86 and PowerPC, under one system.

That doesn't bode well for Microsoft because their software... simply can't do that. Microsoft's position in the SuperComputer and High Performance Systems is abysmal... less than 1%.

In fact, the only significant entry Microsoft has in the Top 500 list is the Chinese built system at Shanghai Supercomputer Center... which actually isn't tasked for any significant work.

Microsoft needs a hook then... SOMETHING to get people off of Linux, off of Unix, off of anything else... and looking at Microsoft products in the SuperComputer market.

With Linux having reached the point where it's user-interface is easy to work in and around, with Mepis having pioneered the user-friendly linux desktop distribution back in 2003, coupled with the explosive rise of Netbooks... the abject failure of Vista... and pretty much everything else that happened in the PC industry over 2007 and 2008... Microsoft's current business model of levying a tax on each computer sold is going the way of DEC ALPHA.

It's no secret that Microsoft has had plans since the launch of NT5 to sell people on licensed software and upgrades... not on continuous boxed software. Microsoft has been implementing a structured business model where customers don't actually own the software they use... but lease it from Microsoft, and most continue to pay a tax to Microsoft in order to continue to use that software.

This proposed idea of paying per processing time... is simply an extension of the direction of licensing that Microsoft has been attempting to go-in... or a repeat of a business model from the past.

Either way, it's not a good business model to follow... right now. Apple, Dell, Canonical, HP, Lenovo, Intel, AMD, and pretty much any other vendor that's pushing Non-Microsoft hardware and software... would see it as a golden opportunity to push their lower-cost Linux / Unix systems.
Click to expand...


FYI that is still how mainframe is done at work. We are one of IBM's biggest customers, and running massive Z/OS and Unix mainframes. IT SUCKS. Anytime I need to compile/link code near the end of the day the screens are really slow cause we burned thru all the cpu time already and are in the throttled mode. I will be uber pissed if that is how my home pc use is.

I'm gonna have to say that unless its a company that is barely large enough for 1 mainframe, they will not be doing their own custom mainframes.
 
Kristofff said:
Potato PotAto. My point is, they can't turn my disc off because I'm not paying a subscription. I can install that disc on my PC until the end of time, should I choose to. I didn't mean to imply that I owned the actual operating system, just the disc and a timeless license.
Click to expand...


<-- Goes and checks Mcafee, Norton, TrendMicro.

Too late!

Hmm perhaps you best focus that energy at the folks that are doing that today with the Anti-Virus software. 1 YEAR license when doing the home thing, for a perpetual license, that will require you to purchase their enterprise level solution. Even though the software still works after the given year, you, as a non-subscriber get ZERO UPDATES.

Just like in Mac land, you own a license to that software but guess what, updates cost $. They are not free ;) So as long as you stick with the same un-updated software. Cost is nothing.

So not a big leap from OS license fee to resource allocation fee.
 
Can anybody say MS Office Subscription!
[…and what happened with that…]




The idea of having to pay for software time usage leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth. There is something viscerally wrong with this picture. Let’s think about this for a moment. What is the point of this? How would Microsoft make money from such a scheme from home users? How would user experience be changed?

First, what is the point of this? MS must think they’re going to charge a small percentage per timed usage and think they’re going to make MORE than they are now, otherwise it’s pointless for them to make such a decision. With digital distribution, very few advertising cost, and only the R&D cost, MS will be making a mint if they head in this direction.
They have such a giant market share, that people would essentially be forced to use this program. Don’t you think they’d be pushing people over to an Apple or Linux platform if they did such a move? Probably so.

Home users spend an incredible amount of time sitting, downloading, fwappin’, coding, gaming, etc. on their computers. What about people who prefer to leave the computers on all night? What rate would be computed for people? Flat fee, prepaid, or minutes rates? People will stay with their old OS and choose not migrate with a new OS for even longer time periods just because of this proposed idea. Why would you buy a new “subscriber” fee for and OS when you can have XP/Vista with no fees attached? Of course at that point in the MS will require new technologies that are only available in a newer OS. *Sigh*

User experience would drastically change. More than likely, people will game less because lets face it – generally gamers aren’t rich. Coding and development would slow, and think about the hit [F]olding would take!

This is a horrible decision because of market size, customer experience, and historical significance. People will not tolerate this decision, but we should all take this with a grain of salt. Nothing is set in stone just because MS filed a patent. What I suggested where merely questions that will need to be ask by MS and the consumer.
 
I love how the article tells of a more "A more granular approach".














This is the next step for "the system" to overrun us...
 
I agree that this will not work simply because people won't buy their product. I do think that some developing countries may like the idea if the computer hardware was free. Internet Cafes for example.
 
Master Blaster said:
The idea of having to pay for software time usage leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth. There is something viscerally wrong with this picture. Let’s think about this for a moment. What is the point of this? How would Microsoft make money from such a scheme from home users? How would user experience be changed?
Click to expand...

It is quite easy actually

This is NOT meant for home users! It is meant for enterprises.

The Corporation does not have to allocate MORE power, MORE cooling or MORE rack space if already filled to the hilt with servers.

Since now the company does not have to pay to bring another line of 3 phase 220 power, adding more condensors to cool the new heat generators. That means less overhead for said company. But of course let's not forget realestate space. Yes. Departments within said companies have a charge back model. About $300/sqft.

Just like home users do not have a subscribtion to technet or MSDN. They will not get into this. The enterprise environment on the other hand, i can see them using this a lot.
 
I agree with the comment about cloud computing being laughable. It's hype that gets you attention when you use the term, but it's nothing else beyond that. I can't see how anyone in the country can be pushing for the cloud to be more mainstream and this move to thin clients everywhere when at the same time all these reports (and truths) that our nations broadband system is shit, and it is. What person would wants to have some hardware at their house that they paid some money to and they don't own? I understand the legality of not "owning" the software now per the IP rights and all that jazz but in reality we own the stuff that we buy. If I unplug my computer from the internet then I can install windows over and over and over and do whatever I want, when I want on my hardware. I can't see this changing.

The only place this might work is in businesses, but then why would any business move to this model when there are a ton of other solutions in existence right now that don't have this ridiculous model tied to them? It just boggles the mind. It brings back memory of the Divx scheme (not the codec). It's quite infuriating.
 
nitefallz said:
The only place this might work is in businesses, but then why would any business move to this model when there are a ton of other solutions in existence right now that don't have this ridiculous model tied to them? It just boggles the mind. It brings back memory of the Divx scheme (not the codec). It's quite infuriating.
Click to expand...


Simple really

Cost

assuming MS prices this time/resource thing correctly.
The company now does not need the following

License agreements more than they have
Support Agreements more than they currently have
Power increases
Cooling increases
Datacenter space increases

those are HUGE cost savings for any company.
 
M$ strikes again. If this was Apple filing the same patent, all the fanbois around here would be shitting themselves.
 
Why are people assuming that this pay-per-use would be for the common consumer?

The common consumer would not benefit from this.

But businesses, enterprises, and corporations would.
 
Cerulean said:
Why are people assuming that this pay-per-use would be for the common consumer?

The common consumer would not benefit from this.

But businesses, enterprises, and corporations would.
Click to expand...


There's a potential for this to work in the consumer market as well. Think cellphones.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top