PDA

View Full Version : MIcrosoft to charge for "useful life" of a computer



Grant A.
December 29th, 2008, 05:17 PM
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-10129438-92.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-5

Congratulations Microsoft, you just lost millions of customers.

klange
December 29th, 2008, 05:21 PM
Ssh! Keep it down, if they realize how stupid they're being they may stop, do you want that to happen?

This isn't just a bad idea for them (actually, it may be a great business model because of what I'm about to say), it's also bad for most of their customers in a different way: Not because they'll be turned away or forced to (knowingly) pay gobs of money for their use, but more importantly because of the massive number of people who don't know about alternatives or don't realize what's happening.

Swagman
December 29th, 2008, 05:29 PM
I have this sneaking feeling an Exodus is about to begin.

Question is.... Do we repel boarders?

Valok
December 29th, 2008, 05:31 PM
One of the worst ideas I've heard in a long time. I mean, most people at the very least know about Macs. If this becomes the only way to use Windows, then we will see a HUGE shift towards Macs. And hopefully once there, people will be more willing to branch out and explore linux.

Grant A.
December 29th, 2008, 05:33 PM
One of the worst ideas I've heard in a long time. I mean, most people at the very least know about Macs. If this becomes the only way to use Windows, then we will see a HUGE shift towards Macs. And hopefully once there, people will be more willing to branch out and explore linux.

What about OpenSolaris? :icon_frown:

And you know what the best thing is? They patented this idea so that only they could use it. :lol:

As soon as this happens, I promise I will hand out free CDs of Linux to anyone I know personally in my city.

SuperSonic4
December 29th, 2008, 05:35 PM
Urgh, they can go f**k themselves if they think I'm agreeing to that. Besides M$ force their own PCs into obselecence within 2 or 3 years (XP being an exception) which essentially forces an upgrade and a whole new cost.

I just don't think it'll make a difference to Linux though, people simply don't know until there is more aggressive advertising. Mac sales will increase

Grant A.
December 29th, 2008, 05:36 PM
Macintoshes are not locked into OS X, and the MoBos can't be locked into any OS, as this would be a major violation of Anti-Trust laws.

Swagman
December 29th, 2008, 05:38 PM
It is .. in fact

Uber clever.

Think about it and apply your own logic.

Lets take Mobile (cell) phones as a prime example.

There are thick sh*ts who happily lock themselves into two year contracts to get a "free" phone.

They will gladly do the same to get a computer and as windows is the O/s the know already......

So how is anyone else going to compete ?
Apple Could do the same

Linux can't.

earthpigg
December 29th, 2008, 05:38 PM
sooo microsoft wants to help me pay for an 8 gigs of ram, 1 gig video card, quad core Alienware box provided that i pay for each use of Windows (if any)?

sounds freaking great to me!

next question: which distro is best for a pimped out Alienware computer that i got for $400?

earthpigg
December 29th, 2008, 05:43 PM
also, good call about the cell phone comparison.

cost of subsidised computer + cost to cancel service contract...

well, screw that. ill keep the contract alive.

dual boot. start windows once a month. "Thats right, Microsoft, I only use my computer one time a month. here is my monthly $0.25 computer use bill, paid in full."

koffeinöverdos
December 29th, 2008, 05:44 PM
I'm not sure if I fully get this or not. It looks like something that affects public computers. A library can choose to get free computers, but then they have to do this pay per use thing? If thats the case, with free computers, why would the government buy public systems anymore? Sounds scary, having to take your credit card if you want to do research at the library, and Windows 7 will probably have a Microsoft ad splash on boot up or something.

First Vista and now this. Beautiful.

lykwydchykyn
December 29th, 2008, 05:46 PM
The question is... did they patent this because they want to go into business doing this, or just so they can sue for royalties from anyone who does?

Grant A.
December 29th, 2008, 05:47 PM
This could actually be fought in court as an abuse of a monopoly against anti-trust laws.

kaldor
December 29th, 2008, 05:47 PM
Sticking with Linux/Mac now for sure.

Swagman
December 29th, 2008, 05:47 PM
dual boot. start windows once a month. "Thats right, Microsoft, I only use my computer one time a month. here is my monthly $0.25 computer use bill, paid in full."


Good thought. But whats the bets that they lock the Bios or use that EFI thingy so you/we can't dual boot

Grant A.
December 29th, 2008, 05:49 PM
Good thought. But whats the bets that they lock the Bios or use that EFI thingy so you/we can't dual boot

Again, they can't do that as it would be an anti-trust law violation.

koffeinöverdos
December 29th, 2008, 05:51 PM
Oh my god they're talking about personal systems? That's even scarier.


Good thought. But whats the bets that they lock the Bios or use that EFI thingy so you/we can't dual boot
Sounds exactly like something they would do.

Delever
December 29th, 2008, 05:51 PM
I also got idea for business model - open kiosk named "MS CRY BOX", which sells Ubuntu CDs... Might be more successful...

amauk
December 29th, 2008, 05:52 PM
Lets take Mobile (cell) phones as a prime example.

There are thick sh*ts who happily lock themselves into two year contracts to get a "free" phone.

They will gladly do the same to get a computer and as windows is the O/s the know already......

So how is anyone else going to compete ?
Apple Could do the same

Linux can't.
Sorry, but you can't compare mobile phones with generic computers

Mobiles are bespoke hardware
you can't "build" your own mobile phone

Yes, people pay a monthly fee for a mobile service
some plans even throw in the actual phone for free

This cannot possibly transfer over to generic computers (not unless the PC hardware industry completely changes overnight)

and I think the (almost) infinitely upgradable computer is way too ingrained in society for OEMs to suddenly start producing completely bespoke hardware that can't be upgraded (a la phones)

Grant A.
December 29th, 2008, 05:52 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-trust

According to the United States competition law, this is illegal as it is considered price gouging.

Well, this looks like Microsoft's second anti-trust case, prepare to see them split up.

uberdonkey5
December 29th, 2008, 05:52 PM
Like phone contracts, I think it could have worked in the past, but that time has gone. They can't really increase the price of software they have already sold to make a contract seem like a cheap option. Also, the limitations on performance are more due to rubbish software than to the computer in most users cases. Microsoft already made a big error with their hefty vista, and most people I know prefer xp. I think microsoft are flailing around alot and it will be difficult to introduce this in an effective and profitable way because cheap computers are available to buy for most tasks and currently available software (e.g. xp) suits the average users needs.

I think microsoft have milked the market as much as they could, and don't really have much extra to offer of any real value. As long as software is compatible with xp, people will stick with that and stay happy with things as they are. If they want better performance they'll get a mac. I don't think linux is ready for the general public yet because the initial set up can be technically difficult (unless more preinstallations of ubuntu are done). I think the technical implications of the operation are also too confusing for the basic user (which lets face it, makes up the majority of windows users).

I think the best thing microsoft could actually do, is make a leaner, meaner, faster, cheap and safer operating system using linux as a model, but more user friendly (in a simple way, not in a five thousand different ways to do the same type of thing way). But really, I think they are bogged down now and are bound to gradually loose market share over the next 10-15 years. They are like a large brontasauros thats realiszing its gobbled up most of the forest and is now deperately looking for other ways to find food.

earthpigg
December 29th, 2008, 05:54 PM
Good thought. But whats the bets that they lock the Bios or use that EFI thingy so you/we can't dual boot

replace the mobo that has the bios physically on it. you'd still probably be saving a crap ton of money, at microsoft's expense. put the origional mobo back on once a month.

or,

strip the ram, video card, etc, off of it and use it on your real comp. put it back together and boot it once a month.

its hardware DRM. they havent even done it yet, and we all know it will be rapidly circumvented.

Fenris_rising
December 29th, 2008, 05:57 PM
What with the adverts, 'Im a PC, and I got paid to do this', It is starting to look a little desparate! My main PC went 8.04 months ago and although I will never gain the heady heights of 'uber font of knowledge' I love linux and what its given me. My wife bought me a 3e 904hd for christmas......it had XP on it, due to availability issues, for all of the 25 minutes it took to install eee ubuntu 8.04.1............it's a winner! Linux will reach a point where the installation gets even easier for the layperson so it's only a question of patience and giving M$ enough rope surely? :D

regards

Fenris

earthpigg
December 29th, 2008, 05:59 PM
Linux will reach a point where the installation gets even easier for the layperson so it's only a question of patience and giving M$ enough rope surely? :D

until, as someone above suggested, MS starts paying companies to use gimped BIOS chips that are incapable of booting off of anything but the hard drive that came with the computer.

Grant A.
December 29th, 2008, 05:59 PM
If you believe that this is infact monopolistic in nature, and you live in the United States, report it to the Federal Trade Commission. I think that this violates Anti-Trust law as it is considered price gauging.

http://www.ftc.gov/


And Earthpigg, for the last time, that would be a violation of Anti-Trust laws and Microsoft would be broken up. Microsoft has gotten in trouble for that before and was almost broken up.

earthpigg
December 29th, 2008, 06:09 PM
And Earthpigg, for that last time, that would be a violation of Anti-Trust laws and Microsoft would be broken up.

it would be absolutely hilarious to see a baby-Microsoft trying to stay afloat only making IE, MSN, and Windows Server Edition or some other silly combination. therefore, i certainly hope you are correct.


(i can get angry about this, or i can get hopeful... i'm pretty sure that however this turns out, if they impliment it, it will benifit FOSS. therefore, i choose to be hopeful. hopeful, also, for a dirt cheap and powerful computer paid for by Balmer & Co.)

melt
December 29th, 2008, 06:11 PM
Greedy

busemans
December 29th, 2008, 06:25 PM
sounds like a horrible deal for the average person. just like the stupid cell phone deals that are offered everywhere. i just got a cell phone for the first time because they offer hte pay as you go deals. there was no way in hell i was getting into a two year contract just so people could call and bother me anywhere i happen to be when they were bored.

earthpigg
December 29th, 2008, 06:28 PM
sounds like a horrible deal for the average person. just like the stupid cell phone deals that are offered everywhere. i just got a cell phone for the first time because they offer hte pay as you go deals. there was no way in hell i was getting into a two year contract just so people could call and bother me anywhere i happen to be when they were bored.

you would be a texan ;)

Swagman
December 29th, 2008, 06:31 PM
you would be a texan ;)

That must be a local joke but I still lolled !!

busemans
December 29th, 2008, 06:36 PM
not born but lived here a while. :)

Fenris_rising
December 29th, 2008, 06:36 PM
Funnily enough I remember attempting to 'fix' a friends PC back in the early days of tiny and time PC's. The one in question was a time PC and my friend's children where unable to install any games that would run after install. As an aside she also wanted me to change her ISP as well (PC bundled with all the peripherals and with the time ISP setup) So I had a fiddle around and I couldn't install working games and the ISP was unchangable to boot!!!!!! My final comment at that point had me down the time shop with my friends husband where a heated argument ensued. They insisted we where doing it incorrectly!!!! The PC was with us so it was put on the counter with the game disk and they were challenged to install the game there and then in front of us...........They declined as it was not 'policy'.......their tech man was out etc etc. Now the interesting thing was when I re iterated my comment (which was 'this PC has been locked') loudly there was a rapid sea change in their attitude although they denied it initially and it took the threat of having a friend from the IT dept of the nearby collage having a look at it they folded. So locking PC's to lock you in has been tried many times I think.

regards

Fenris

Kernel Sanders
December 29th, 2008, 06:50 PM
You can actually patent this? FAIL.

MikeTheC
December 29th, 2008, 06:52 PM
This could actually be fought in court as an abuse of a monopoly against anti-trust laws.

That's already been done. Look at where it got us.

Swagman
December 29th, 2008, 06:52 PM
Funnily enough I remember attempting to 'fix' a friends PC back in the early days of tiny and time PC's. The one in question was a time PC and my friend's children where unable to install any games that would run after install. As an aside she also wanted me to change her ISP as well (PC bundled with all the peripherals and with the time ISP setup) So I had a fiddle around and I couldn't install working games and the ISP was unchangable to boot!!!!!! My final comment at that point had me down the time shop with my friends husband where a heated argument ensued. They insisted we where doing it incorrectly!!!! The PC was with us so it was put on the counter with the game disk and they were challenged to install the game there and then in front of us...........They declined as it was not 'policy'.......their tech man was out etc etc. Now the interesting thing was when I re iterated my comment (which was 'this PC has been locked') loudly there was a rapid sea change in their attitude although they denied it initially and it took the threat of having a friend from the IT dept of the nearby collage having a look at it they folded. So locking PC's to lock you in has been tried many times I think.

regards

Fenris

I have personal experience with "Tiny" machines as well.
Cdrom borked so we changed it and it wouldn't boot.
Major arguments and it was revealed that bios checked MAKE of cdrom .. not device.

Sorted.

Glad they went bust

MikeTheC
December 29th, 2008, 06:57 PM
You can actually patent this? FAIL.

Sooner or later, the citizens of a country have to bear responsibility for the actions of the fellows and of their government. Until then, we'll just keep putting the screws to ourselves.

rickyjones
December 29th, 2008, 07:14 PM
Sounds similar to a situation at work. We have IBM mainframes and our contract allows us to use a certain amount of processing power. If we need to use more we call IBM and pay to get more processors activated so we can process more data. The machines are also generally leased, so in essence we are continually paying per use of these machines. Seems to work in many ways.

Definitely seems like an odd choice for the general consumer side -- seems like a waste of money for Microsoft if you ask me.

Thanks,
Richard

Dragonbite
December 29th, 2008, 07:21 PM
The only way I can see this reach the light of day is in connection with Cloud computing and/or thin clients.

You boot up on a thin client of some sort and connect to a host server which maintains your system so no IT staff is necessary at the client facility, plus versions are automatically updated at no extra cost (like the newest version of Office becomes available without you doing anything ... and is backwards compatible!).

Even if this just relies on software and you supply the client system and network and then all of your software is provided by a subscription concept like this, it may work.

I think they are just trying to continue their subscription software concept they've been talking about for years and with cloud computing growing they may actually be able to pursue some of these ideas.

FuturePilot
December 29th, 2008, 07:32 PM
That's just ridiculous. It sounds like FAIL to me.

ade234uk
December 29th, 2008, 07:40 PM
I does not effect me because I use Ubuntu. Let Microsoft keep pissing off their customers. I have migrated to Ubuntu on my home machine and I am very very happy with it. I don't miss anything about Windows whatsoever.

KiwiNZ
December 29th, 2008, 07:46 PM
Much ado about nothing

Its an idea that has been patented, there is literally thousands of ideas patented a year that never get any further.

creek23
December 29th, 2008, 07:46 PM
First, Proprietary Software business model.

Now, this?

I just fully understood how mad rms and other hackers were, when MS pioneered the Proprietary Software.

But to date, businessmen supported Proprietary Software which shoved a lot of cash in their a$$. There could probably be a big chance for this new-and-stupid business model to become their new shovel.

...

But wait, if this model is patented, then only MS will benefit. This means, others can't do the same, thus it will fail.

Haha! It will FAIL!!! Har! har! har!

Giant Speck
December 29th, 2008, 07:46 PM
The only way I can see this reach the light of day is in connection with Cloud computing and/or thin clients.

You boot up on a thin client of some sort and connect to a host server which maintains your system so no IT staff is necessary at the client facility, plus versions are automatically updated at no extra cost (like the newest version of Office becomes available without you doing anything ... and is backwards compatible!).

Even if this just relies on software and you supply the client system and network and then all of your software is provided by a subscription concept like this, it may work.

I think they are just trying to continue their subscription software concept they've been talking about for years and with cloud computing growing they may actually be able to pursue some of these ideas.

I was thinking something along the same lines.

I don't think this patent is meant for the average home user, and I think everyone here is blowing this out of proportion. They see words like "Microsoft," "user," "charge," and "per hour" and go nuts.

uberdonkey5
December 29th, 2008, 07:52 PM
I does not effect me because I use Ubuntu. Let Microsoft keep pissing off their customers. I have migrated to Ubuntu on my home machine and I am very very happy with it. I don't miss anything about Windows whatsoever.

Well, I agree, but I remember the frustration I used to have on my home computer in the past was that I HAD to update my windows versions because managers in companies wanted the latest windows versions and I couldn't open files at home without having that version (i.e. wasnt backwards compatable). It would be nice if managers of some companies took the step to get away from windows to linux maintained by proper linux support staff, and then at least people would be exposed to excellent, functioning, preloaded linux software and would make an easier transition at home.

Windows seem to try every game in the book to lock people in to buying their stuff. Maybe bill gates is building an army that will force people to buy windows at gun point, as soon as their market share drops to 50%.

Dharmachakra
December 29th, 2008, 08:00 PM
There's no sense in getting bent out of shape about it. It hasn't happened yet, and I wouldn't be surprised if this is the last time we ever heard about it. Patents without action don't mean anything.

Skripka
December 29th, 2008, 08:09 PM
There's no sense in getting bent out of shape about it. It hasn't happened yet, and I wouldn't be surprised if this is the last time we ever heard about it. Patents without action don't mean anything.

Even then it is only a patent application-I don't see anywhere that it has been granted....also patenting business practices probably won't fly even in the US.

Npl
December 29th, 2008, 08:21 PM
It would certainly be neat if I could lease a Laptop when I need one (like 2 days per year).

But of course beeing on a Linux-Forum, this patent must imply that MS plans to strongarm the whole industry to abandon selling hardware-components and send the FBI after the Hacker-Rebels who dare to buy their computer. Lets start on our holy crusade, gonna grab my pitchfork and torch...

Issuing patents is a preventive tactic nowadays, doesnt mean much as Dharmachakra already said

albinootje
December 29th, 2008, 08:26 PM
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-10129438-92.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-5

Congratulations Microsoft, you just lost millions of customers.

I think this is great news!

But I hope it will end up at the frontpage of all newspapers worldwide (etc.etc.) soon, so that people finally start to fully realise what they are (or have been) dealing with.

smartboyathome
December 29th, 2008, 08:32 PM
If you believe that this is infact monopolistic in nature, and you live in the United States, report it to the Federal Trade Commission. I think that this violates Anti-Trust law as it is considered price gauging.

http://www.ftc.gov/


And Earthpigg, for the last time, that would be a violation of Anti-Trust laws and Microsoft would be broken up. Microsoft has gotten in trouble for that before and was almost broken up.

It won't do much good yet to do this. In fact, I think it would be suicidal for Microsoft to do this.

Lets say the patent goes through. Now Microsoft is the only one who can use this business model. Much like cell phones which are free are usually more popular, this will make Windows more popular. Other OSes wouldn't be able to compete since Microsoft is the only one who can use the model. In essence, this DOES create a monopoly.


And to whoever said to change the motherboard, that isn't always possible. Where I see this hurting most is on laptops, which are very hard to change the hardware. Many people wouldn't even do it because it would violate warranties. So, in essence, with laptops would become money making machines.

geoken
December 29th, 2008, 08:52 PM
How is this an anti-trust issue? MS is simply trying to patent the idea of selling one hardware configuration and satisfying different price points by limiting the hardware via software, then charging a fee to enable said hardware on-demand. This isn't tied in to Windows or a part of Windows. It will at best be a feature of the hardware which windows is able to support.

That said, I don't think it's feasible for normal desktop use.

geoken
December 29th, 2008, 08:57 PM
Oh, and to the Apple users praising Job's, you guys realize Apple has already began doing things like this right?

Have you guys already forgot how they equipped Mac's with 802.11n capabilities, disabled the option, then when their 802.11n router hit the market made OS X users pay a fee to enable the full capabilities of their hardware?

gletob
December 29th, 2008, 09:11 PM
I bet the people over at the EU would love to see this!

linuxguymarshall
December 29th, 2008, 09:22 PM
sooo microsoft wants to help me pay for an 8 gigs of ram, 1 gig video card, quad core alienware box provided that i pay for each use of windows (if any)?

Sounds freaking great to me!

Next question: Which distro is best for a pimped out alienware computer that i got for $400?


:p

lykwydchykyn
December 29th, 2008, 09:39 PM
Oh, and to the Apple users praising Job's, you guys realize Apple has already began doing things like this right?

Have you guys already forgot how they equipped Mac's with 802.11n capabilities, disabled the option, then when their 802.11n router hit the market made OS X users pay a fee to enable the full capabilities of their hardware?

Hmmm... maybe that would constitute prior art. Keep that in mind, because sure as shootin' when MS implements this people will complain about the lack of it on Linux, and GNU will have to pull something together.

:P (just kidding).

MaxIBoy
December 29th, 2008, 09:48 PM
also, good call about the cell phone comparison.

cost of subsidised computer + cost to cancel service contract...

well, screw that. ill keep the contract alive.

dual boot. start windows once a month. "Thats right, Microsoft, I only use my computer one time a month. here is my monthly $0.25 computer use bill, paid in full."

I imagine they'd implement it with a motherboard chip. Here's how it would go down:

A simple "lockout" chip is designed.

It contains a relay that feeds power to the northbridge, southbridge, CPU, RAM, and so on.
It contains the system clock.
For every millisecond that the relay is closed, a "usage meter" in an internal EEEPROM is incremented.
It replaces the functions of the BIOS.

A special six-pin internal connector is designed. One end will connect to the NIC, the other end will connect to this special chip. Sort of like the connector you use to power your cooling fans.
All motherboards must have this new chip, and all NICs must have this new connector, otherwise Microsoft will refuse to "certify" them as being "capable" of handling this new OS.


Then, the bootstrap process goes like this:

User presses power button.
This new "lockout" chip generates a hash, based on the serial number of the chip and the current date as reported by the system clock.
This hash is sent to a remote server, via the NIC, via this new six-pin connector.
If the hash is valid, the remote server uses it to encrypt a standard handshake packet, and sends the packet back to the chip, via the NIC, via the six-pin connector.
The chip then sends whatever is in its "usage" meter, and resets the counter.
The server then automatically bills the owner of the computer, and uses this hash we already mentioned to encrypt some BIOS code and send it to the chip. (Or, if the user cannot afford to pay the bill, it sends a signal that tells the chip to display a nag message on the screen.)
The chip decrypts the BIOS code, loads it into the registers of the processor, and the computer boots normally from there.



Now, the computer is running normally, regardless of the OS. This lockout chip is still running. Every 10 minutes or so, the chip pings the remote server, and you are billed for the time. If the chip is unable to ping the server, the computer hard-resets.

handy
December 29th, 2008, 11:26 PM
Even then it is only a patent application-I don't see anywhere that it has been granted....also patenting business practices probably won't fly even in the US.

A patent applied for or pending is generally as good as a patent in court, it provides proof of concept & date.

Skripka
December 29th, 2008, 11:32 PM
A patent applied for or pending is generally as good as a patent in court, it provides proof of concept & date.

So what you're saying is Microsoft is currently suing all the telecoms for infringing on their (nearly) patented business model? :)


BTW-Shimano has a patent on a 14-speed chain based shifting system, and they've had it for years, the latest currently in the shifting wars is Campy Super Record's 11 Speed (insert Spinal Tap jokes) here. A patent on something means nothing in and of itself. There are many absurd patents on the books-for actual inventions, that went nowhere.

handy
December 29th, 2008, 11:45 PM
So what you're saying is Microsoft is currently suing all the telecoms for infringing on their (nearly) patented business model? :)

No, perhaps you should read what I wrote a few more times. ;-)

billgoldberg
December 30th, 2008, 12:29 AM
One of the worst ideas I've heard in a long time. I mean, most people at the very least know about Macs. If this becomes the only way to use Windows, then we will see a HUGE shift towards Macs. And hopefully once there, people will be more willing to branch out and explore linux.

Come on.

This is something that will be totally optional, if it ever takes of at all.

Companies take patents all the time without doing anything with them.

This could actually be useful for people who barely touch computers, but still need one one or twice a month.

Grant A.
December 30th, 2008, 01:24 AM
This is a business method patent in disguise. I recommend you report it to the U.S. Patent Office.

As of the Re Bilski en banc decision, business methods are no longer reasonable patents.

toupeiro
December 30th, 2008, 01:30 AM
Come on.

This is something that will be totally optional, if it ever takes of at all.

Companies take patents all the time without doing anything with them.

This could actually be useful for people who barely touch computers, but still need one one or twice a month.

To put more of a point on it,

This could really ONLY benefit those who barely touch their computers, or benefit Microsoft in that they can completely modulate their OS and strip it down to run on more lightweight hardware (e.g. ARM processor based machines) and compete performance wise with Linux on that platform, yet potentially turn more of a profit on a less functional OS.

it will put a lot of strain on the moderate/average computer users, who use the power of their machines and OS, know what tools they want to use, but don't always understand everything they need to in order for their tools to work the way they expect. The average user is not, in my opinion, technically savvy enough to identify which parts they do or do not need out of their OS to do their 3rd party application based tasks, so they will either undershoot their subscription, or grossly overshoot it. I can already foresee a "DirectX Tier" geared towards gamers, and so many people who rely on graphics not realizing how much their hardware will begin to suck in Windows if they do not have DirectX, but aren't necessarily gamers.

I didn't like the direction Microsoft was going with Vista, and I certainly do not like the direction they are going with their next-generation offerings. Good riddance.

Polygon
December 30th, 2008, 02:35 AM
i can see this method working for cell phones, since your not only wireless, but you have to use their own network, its not like the internet

but on a home computer? ahaha microsoft you make me laugh with your stupidity.

Grant A.
December 30th, 2008, 02:39 AM
I have sent an E-Mail to Microsoft asking if this will infact be a future feature on all Microsoft Windows computers, or just a select few versions.



Dear Microsoft,

Hello, I was browsing CNet when I noticed <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-10129438-92.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-5">this</a> news article stating that you plan on starting pay-per-use computing. Now while this may be a good idea for people who hardly touch their computer, it seems like a bad idea for tech savvy users such as myself. As tech savvy users will find themselves spending loads of money to use what they enjoy, their computer. So my question is, will this be a default feature on all future versions of the Microsoft Windows Operating System, or will it just be a separate version of Windows? Because if this is a default feature on all future versions of Windows, I sadly regret that I will no longer be able to buy the Microsoft Windows Operating System or any computer it is pre-installed on, and will have to switch to an alternative such as a computer loaded with the Apple Macintosh OS X Operating System.

Thank you for your time,

Grant


I will post the reply once I receive it.

Skripka
December 30th, 2008, 02:43 AM
I have sent an E-Mail to Microsoft asking if this will infact be a future feature on all Microsoft Windows computers, or just a select few versions.



I will post the reply once I receive it.

I'm curious...my money is on either no return email--or a boilerplate response saying "We do not discuss future marketing....rest assured...(blah blah blah)."

MikeTheC
December 30th, 2008, 05:28 AM
I don't know if the public -- stupid, unsavvy and blundering though they may be -- will actually go for something like this. Oracle tried subscription-based apps and that failed; Napster and Rhapsody aren't doing so well (obviously they have utterly failed to take over the market from Apple's iTMS), and so I don't see why this will work, either. Don't get me wrong, it's not that I couldn't envision a bunch of people rushing down to the store to get a subsidized, cheaper-than-dirt computer, but once they realize the kind of regular bills they're going to be paying just to use the thing, I think we'll ultimately see a lot of returns (attempted at least, whether successful or not) and a bunch of ditched systems laying at the curb for pick up.

Naturally, we who "think different" (to borrow from Apple) will not be getting involved in this, and I for one plan on sitting on the sidelines, laughing as this train-wreck-of-a-business-model goes by.

Just you remember who Microsoft has for a CEO, folks. The dude is a Grade A nutjob "rich car salesman" who thinks he can bum-rush his way through the tech industry. That ain't the way the game is played, and we all know it. But it also shows how desperate they are for eaking out that last iota of control over everyone on the planet. Don't the rest of you find it as disgusting as I do?

MikeTheC
December 30th, 2008, 05:30 AM
[email to Microsoft]
Nice. Hope you get a real reply, but don't hold your breath.

nath2008uk
December 30th, 2008, 05:35 AM
paying to use a computer?
blackmail more like :P

Im 100% sure I'm switching to kubuntu now

Giant Speck
December 30th, 2008, 06:23 AM
The more and more I read about this patent, the more and more I begin to think that the patent doesn't apply to a form of computing that we are all familiar with.

Perhaps this patent is Microsoft's way of laying down the foundation for a possible future in Web-based Operating Systems. If you apply the fundamentals of this patent to ordinary computing, it doesn't make sense at all. But if you look at the way Microsoft is evolving, it is becoming more and more web based.

Look at Windows 7 for example. Most of the familiar built-in programs from XP and Vista have been stripped from the OS entirely, and are offered as either a la carte downloads from Microsoft's website or converted to web services provided by Windows Live. Microsoft is actively developing an online version of Microsoft Office, which aims to be cross-platform. Additionally, Microsoft is already working on partnerships with big names such as Digg, Flickr, Pandora, Stumble-Upon, Twitter and WordPress in order to build a stronger web base to use as competition against Google.

Combining a web-based operating system with the basic principles of this patent make for an easy comparison to the cell phone services of today. You get the hardware for a severely reduced price or even for free, and most of the software and services are paid for in a monthly bill.

lykwydchykyn
December 30th, 2008, 07:00 AM
The more and more I read about this patent, the more and more I begin to think that the patent doesn't apply to a form of computing that we are all familiar with.


I have to agree. If they've only just applied for a patent, then an implementation is a long way out. I think it's reasonable to assume that consumers are moving towards the idea of a "computing appliance" rather than the traditional home computer; also, that internet access is far more important than local apps (I guess that's cloud computing again). In this context, a "pay-for-use" business model could be feasible (though not a world I'd want to live in).

Though as I quipped earlier, it's not for certain MS actually wants to use this idea, just that they want to claim it as theirs in case anyone else tries to use it. MS has never been a hardware company, after all (well, unless you count mice and keyboards).

MikeTheC
December 30th, 2008, 07:21 AM
The more and more I read about this patent, the more and more I begin to think that the patent doesn't apply to a form of computing that we are all familiar with.

Perhaps this patent is Microsoft's way of laying down the foundation for a possible future in Web-based Operating Systems. If you apply the fundamentals of this patent to ordinary computing, it doesn't make sense at all. But if you look at the way Microsoft is evolving, it is becoming more and more web based.

Look at Windows 7 for example. Most of the familiar built-in programs from XP and Vista have been stripped from the OS entirely, and are offered as either a la carte downloads from Microsoft's website or converted to web services provided by Windows Live. Microsoft is actively developing an online version of Microsoft Office, which aims to be cross-platform. Additionally, Microsoft is already working on partnerships with big names such as Digg, Flickr, Pandora, Stumble-Upon, Twitter and WordPress in order to build a stronger web base to use as competition against Google.

Combining a web-based operating system with the basic principles of this patent make for an easy comparison to the cell phone services of today. You get the hardware for a severely reduced price or even for free, and most of the software and services are paid for in a monthly bill.

Assuming you're correct... what do you think companies such as Google, and users such as us, do about it?

Giant Speck
December 30th, 2008, 08:06 AM
Assuming you're correct... what do you think companies such as Google, and users such as us, do about it?

Hell if I know. I was just hypothesizing.

earthpigg
December 30th, 2008, 08:08 AM
Assuming you're correct... what do you think companies such as Google, and users such as us, do about it?

continue using google ;)

i cant imagine web-MS Office will ever be as slim or efficient as google docs.

JDorfler
December 30th, 2008, 08:20 AM
Ummm, NO!

cdtech
December 30th, 2008, 08:31 AM
Thank you Linus Torvalds..........

handy
December 30th, 2008, 12:04 PM
Google, MS, & Adobe just for starters are all aiming at having the biggest holding they can in the possible future where the wealthy have many of their electrical appliances online.

The U.S. phone carriers are eroding the boundaries that limit them to the role of carriers because they see the potential goldmine available to them if they can be providers too.

The link below in my signature The End of the Internet discusses the encroachment of the corporate, information limiting & controlling, keep 'em dumb & entertained & slaves for us as long as possible while we continue to spread & refine our domination paradigms.

MS's motivations are patently obvious.

Dragonbite
December 30th, 2008, 03:41 PM
The more and more I read about this patent, the more and more I begin to think that the patent doesn't apply to a form of computing that we are all familiar with.

Sounds about right. That's why I mentioned cloud computing but just thought about games. Instead of arcades of quarter-operated games how about connected metered games that you can pay with your cell phone?

Or VOIP kiosks?

Or Conference kiosks, so one can use the kiosk (and projectors, etc.) and be billed only for the time of the meeting? Combined with cloud computing you put your files in the cloud, go to the conference, and pay only for the time the computer is on, retrieving your file and running the presentation!

Or coffee makers.

SunnyRabbiera
December 30th, 2008, 04:00 PM
Bullet in foot...
BANG!

Skripka
December 30th, 2008, 04:24 PM
Or coffee makers.


The End of Civilization .....

Grant A.
December 31st, 2008, 07:41 AM
I got my reply to the e-mail, they told me to contact the pre-sales team through the phone. I'll have to do that later.

One small step, I suppose. ](*,)

SonnHalter
December 31st, 2008, 07:44 AM
Here's the plan guys......WUBI!!!

kevin11951
December 31st, 2008, 07:46 AM
what is the difference between what they are talking about, and this: http://www6.rentacenter.com/site/page/as22-pg6342.html?

Giant Speck
December 31st, 2008, 07:54 AM
what is the difference between what they are talking about, and this: http://www6.rentacenter.com/site/page/as22-pg6342.html?

Rent-a-Center allows a customer to make equal monthly payments on a computer until they have completely paid off the price of the computer.

What is currently being discussed in the article is a system where a customer buys a computer (or get one for free, I guess) and then pays based on how much they use the computer.

Kopachris
December 31st, 2008, 08:28 AM
Useful life? The computer I'm currently using is *counts on fingers (in binary)* about 7 years old and is running the latest Ubuntu with quite a few Compiz effects enabled just fine. "Useful life" is only a myth that was created when Windows started to ruin computers. Heck, I expect at least another 3 years out of this dinosaur before it's retired in favor of a nice new server. (When I can afford to get a new desktop, I'm going to transform this into a server).

PryGuy
December 31st, 2008, 08:34 AM
Micro$oft... Don't they realize world moves to an opposite model, take mobile phones or broadband internet for instance. But that's okay with them...

cammin
December 31st, 2008, 06:15 PM
Sounds like they're turning the Xbox platform (360 or next gen) into a office machine.

Dragonbite
December 31st, 2008, 06:21 PM
Sounds like they're turning the Xbox platform (360 or next gen) into a office machine.

Can already do that with a Playstation and Yellow Dog Linux (http://us.fixstars.com/products/ydl/). :)

cjnkns
December 31st, 2008, 07:07 PM
Maybe I am just frustrated right now but I am really sick and tired.

Now they want you to bill you monthly for computer use! :confused:


http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/202/1050202/microsoft-patents-pay-as-you-go-computing

Boy am I glad I found Ubuntu and Linux :)

overdrank
December 31st, 2008, 07:12 PM
:D merged

insane_alien
December 31st, 2008, 07:19 PM
so, they want me to rent software that if i buy just now i only have to pay for once and can use it for as long as i want to?

surely the populace can't be this thick. especially with the economic downturn.

cammin
December 31st, 2008, 07:58 PM
Can already do that with a Playstation and Yellow Dog Linux (http://us.fixstars.com/products/ydl/). :)

There are people who have installed Linux on 360's, (The exploit that allowed this was patched quickly. MS even went as far as having the updater blow out an e-fuse on the CPU to keep people from downgrading to an exploitable firmware.) The point I was hinting at is that the Xbox's hypervisor provides all the lockdown functions that would be needed to accomplish the pay-to-play type of system. A modified version of Xbox live makes a good distribution system (for them). All the 360 really needs is more ram. If they were going to use it as a thin client, it wouldn't even need that.

cisk4me
January 1st, 2009, 11:06 AM
I think the situation is dangerous. Right now most of us have been forced to pay the Micro$oft tax because few computer manufacturers will sell you a computer without Windows. Apple will, and I bought one and use it dual-boot with Ubuntu, but I don't recommend it as a solution. Dell will, but on my configuration wanted a staggering GBP150 more for pre-installed Ubuntu than Windows. So they're not interested in non-Windows business.
I can foresee that the **only** way to get a new computer is to get it for free and be forced to rent it by the hour. No one will offer anything else because the suppliers' revenue streams are higher with the rental model. Since the PC is locked to the rental model, there will be no way to wipe Windows and install Linux.
In this brave new world we will have to pay the MS tax every time we use a computer!

NEUR0M4NCER
January 1st, 2009, 08:50 PM
Microsoft patents Pay-as-you-go computing (http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/202/1050202/microsoft-patents-pay-as-you-go-computing)

This is where FOSS will come into its own. If MS really do try to charge by the bit, watching your every move and demanding credit details to use your own computer, then surely they can only alienate their customers more...

I was stunned to read the above article - they really have no clue, do they?

Sand & Mercury
January 1st, 2009, 08:56 PM
I just seriously doubt that such a scheme would take off at all. Or if it does, it will only be so with very very casual computer users, who'll only use the machine once a week to check emails and whatnot.

technotitclan
January 1st, 2009, 09:07 PM
I just seriously doubt that such a scheme would take off at all. Or if it does, it will only be so with very very casual computer users, who'll only use the machine once a week to check emails and whatnot.

exactly. it is designed with the businesses traveler in mind. not the every dayer.

MikeTheC
January 1st, 2009, 09:13 PM
While I, too, believe this is a stupid strategy, I also believe something Aldus Huxley said: "There's a sucker born every minute."

I-75
January 1st, 2009, 09:16 PM
It is already being discussed here...


http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1024720

fouadatmeh
January 1st, 2009, 09:18 PM
Well thats just stupid, first vista and now this!!!
also, it is not like am costing them anything to run their ULTRA heavy OS..

Come to think of it, thats why they are making such needy OS's... imagine paying per MB of RAM used in VISTA... LOL:)

fouadatmeh
January 1st, 2009, 09:20 PM
Well thats just stupid, first vista and now this!!!
also, it is not like am costing them anything to run their ULTRA heavy OS..

Come to think of it, thats why they are making such needy OS's... imagine paying per MB of RAM used in VISTA... LOL:)

Dharmachakra
January 1st, 2009, 09:30 PM
I highly doubt this is going to happen. In fact, I would wager that this strategy in it's current form will never make it off paper.

Frak
January 1st, 2009, 09:43 PM
They have places that do this in Japan. Customers can use a semi-dumb terminal that is connected to a Virtual Machine on a local server that dynamically allocates resources based on need/payment. They could play TF2 on them, but they'd have to pay for the extra resources.

jrusso2
January 1st, 2009, 11:24 PM
Microsoft patents Pay-as-you-go computing (http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/202/1050202/microsoft-patents-pay-as-you-go-computing)

This is where FOSS will come into its own. If MS really do try to charge by the bit, watching your every move and demanding credit details to use your own computer, then surely they can only alienate their customers more...

I was stunned to read the above article - they really have no clue, do they?

I remember Linux people saying the exact same thing when product activation started and yet it did not slow down Microsoft one bit on XP or Office 2003.

Dr. C
January 1st, 2009, 11:38 PM
I remember Linux people saying the exact same thing when product activation started and yet it did not slow down Microsoft one bit on XP or Office 2003.

But a Microsoft shareholder that listened to the "Linux People" and sold thier position in Microsoft Stock in 1999 / 2000 when product activation and other DRM schemes were introduced would be laughing all the way to the bank. MSFT peaked at over $58 a share in late 1999 and is now trading at about $19 a share.

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=MSFT#chart5:symbol=msft;range=19860313,2 0081231;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair= on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on
Click on Max below the chart to get the full range

ELD
January 1st, 2009, 11:40 PM
People will simply fall in line with MS like they always do. You are forgetting most MS users don't even know of Linux.

chucky chuckaluck
January 1st, 2009, 11:45 PM
this move could push linux over the 4% mark.

frup
January 1st, 2009, 11:53 PM
I remember Linux people saying the exact same thing when product activation started and yet it did not slow down Microsoft one bit on XP or Office 2003.

Product activation is what made me switch over. After hearing about Linux since sometime around the birth of the Mozilla project off and on but never actually getting around to trying it (Dial up internet at the time), when my legitimate XP install somehow deactivated I was seriously frustrated. Years of data lost. I ended up getting another HDD and installing XP again but it couldn't read the original drive because the permissions were all wrong (Maybe persistence could have won but fortunately it didn't)... I ended up going on my brothers computer and browsing around and with some luck I was presented with a voucher to download Linspire 5.0 for free... now that was lucky because it had NTFS support by default and this stage I was too new to the concepts of Linux to even really know the differences between everything. I popped it in and it looked nice, it worked nice and it let me read the NTFS drive and restore all my data. I was happy and that single act won me over. I hated XP, I hated the stress it had caused and the fact that a legitimate user could be treated like a criminal (as with DRM, only the legitimate users are harmed, pirates crack around the issues)

From that moment on I have been using nothing but Linux. Linspire stayed for less than a month, I bought the CNR thing and that is still one of my most hated things I have tried on Linux. I reinstalled 3 times in that month because it kept breaking. After trying on a range of different Distros, in early 2006, I settled on Ubuntu. Thanks to XP deactivating, I'm here.

gnomeuser
January 2nd, 2009, 12:09 AM
I doubt Microsoft is going anywhere, besides the idea is not as half-brained as it seems. Your average users is likely to get a whole lot of usage out for the price one Microsoft Office license costs.

One presumes this is intended for cloud computing, someone has to pay for all the power, equipment and bandwidth this will use and making certain services for pay might be a good idea.

Down the line I think we are going to see this as an approach to computing, be it hourly usage fees or say a monthly subscription. At least for some cases. My mother would be perfectly fine with paying a couple of bucks a month for Office suite services of high quality with support, the same way she is fine having a credit based cellphone rather than a paid subscription. If you don't use an office suite more than a couple of hours a month then this is likely a fine option.

Regardless, I would not call Microsoft actively seeking out new revenue models putting a nail in the coffin. It's a sign that they are seeking out new venues, they can't be assured that they can keep having nice income from the sale of Windows and Office forever. I am quite pleased to see them accept that they can't rely on sale and support contracts for income.

I know people who thought cellphone companies were mad when they put out these credit based cellphone plans and yet that more than most things helped put a cellphone into everyones hand. They understood that the technology was ready for a massive push, letting people pay for usage was a very good model and now they have pretty much everyone hooked on a monthly plan. I look at this as being quite similar, offer people high quality tools online with services around them to make them attractive. Give them maybe 5 hours free each month, then ask for a pittance per user per hour outside of that. Add a subscription model and voila.. slowly people will get hooked.

The question might be if the ad revenue based model Google takes will be able to scale for cloud computing as it gets more popular. They might get more customer data to refine their ad models with but they certainly also gain a lot more load on their servers and higher equipment/bandwidth demands.

lykwydchykyn
January 2nd, 2009, 12:15 AM
It's a patent. Not a product, not a business plan, not a proposed new thing. Just a patent. So don't get excited.

Seems like a while back they filed a patent for delivering ad content on the OS level, and everyone went through this same kerfluffle. Anyone seeing ad content delivered on their Vista machine (not counting the adware you picked up)? Probably not. They haven't implemented that one (yet).

When this becomes more than a patent, we have something to talk about. For now, all we can say is that someone thought it would be a good enough idea to stake their claim on it for the next 20 years.

MikeTheC
January 2nd, 2009, 02:07 AM
I remember Linux people saying the exact same thing when product activation started and yet it did not slow down Microsoft one bit on XP or Office 2003.

To say it had no impact would be incorrect, but in both directions. Neither Linux nor Mac OS X were considered to be as viable then as they are now. Also, XP was both the general public's first forray into the NT platform, and simultaneously XP was Microsoft's first forray into offering NT to the masses. Neither side was really fully prepared for it. And given what we know it's exploitability to have been, it was inevitable people would become more open to switching. Activation was simply "one more thing".

Now, the flip of this is that other software vendors became emboldened and enthralled by what Microsoft had done, and have simply played this off as being a part of the natural direction of things.

Ultimately, this is all about leverage and exploiting the (dumb?) masses. Microsoft is the "premiere" OS platform vendor and has such ubiquity they can "force" the public to go along with them. All the software packages out there which do this as well (MS Office excluded for the moment) are "pro" apps for the most part, products which have long-since snared users and whole industries (Adobe Creative Suite, for instance), and likewise feel they can do whatever they want.

This, collectively, has played a major part in my own migration from commercial OSs and apps to F/OSS.

Giant Speck
January 2nd, 2009, 03:06 AM
But a Microsoft shareholder that listened to the "Linux People" and sold thier position in Microsoft Stock in 1999 / 2000 when product activation and other DRM schemes were introduced would be laughing all the way to the bank. MSFT peaked at over $58 a share in late 1999 and is now trading at about $19 a share.

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=MSFT#chart5:symbol=msft;range=19860313,2 0081231;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair= on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on
Click on Max below the chart to get the full range

Yes, but the introduction of product activation and DRM isn't the only factor in the decline of those stock prices.

MSFT peaked at a time when a lot of stocks were peaking. All three major U.S. stock indices made record highs (NASDAQ's peaked above 5000 points in 2000). After that peak in prices, many stocks began a steady decline throughout 2000 and 2001. The decline was worsened by the attacks on September 11.

If you look at MSFT's prices in the past couple of years, you can see that they peaked again at around $35 per share right around the time when the Dow Jones was in the 13,000 point range.

After the stock market bubble popped once more, MSFT's price declined along with it.

Hyper Tails
January 2nd, 2009, 03:13 AM
I Microsoft Is going to Be so Cheap
I Might as well stop using it!!

ARGH!!!!!
MICROSOFT!!!
COME ON!!!!

Hyper Tails
January 2nd, 2009, 03:26 AM
People will simply fall in line with MS like they always do. You are forgetting most MS users don't even know of Linux.

You are SOOO Right!

steveneddy
January 2nd, 2009, 03:28 AM
Just wait until you see what 7 has is store for the followers.

lswb
January 2nd, 2009, 04:16 AM
While I, too, believe this is a stupid strategy, I also believe something Aldus Huxley said: "There's a sucker born every minute."

I think that was P. T. Barnum :)

lswb
January 2nd, 2009, 04:19 AM
this move could push linux over the 4% mark.

you left the decimal point off before that 4 :)

Frak
January 2nd, 2009, 05:05 AM
Just wait until you see what 7 has is store for the followers.
I happen to like it, why?

cmat
January 2nd, 2009, 06:16 AM
It kind of makes sense that they would be leaning towards this way of doing business. Back in March when Windows 7 started picking up headlines. Microsoft mentioned that this was going to be the most modular version of Windows ever (doesn't mean much to me when all their APIs are closed). I started thinking that they might be doing this to make certain features subscription based. You can buy a base OS and then pay monthly or annually for premium components. If you don't want to pay for them they can be simply turned off without taking down the whole system.

I think Microsoft "cutting the fat" and slimming down Windows 7 makes it better at running in a virtual environment without being too taxing on server resources. Windows 7 could easily be the first subscription based OS. Computers will have to be registered on Microsoft's central server in order to run. This might be better than WGA and really throw a wrench into pirating. Heck if I was running Microsoft I would jump all over the idea.

Grant A.
January 2nd, 2009, 06:25 AM
It kind of makes sense that they would be leaning towards this way of doing business. Back in March when Windows 7 started picking up headlines. Microsoft mentioned that this was going to be the most modular version of Windows ever (doesn't mean much to me when all their APIs are closed). I started thinking that they might be doing this to make certain features subscription based. You can buy a base OS and then pay monthly or annually for premium components. If you don't want to pay for them they can be simply turned off without taking down the whole system.

I think Microsoft "cutting the fat" and slimming down Windows 7 makes it better at running in a virtual environment without being too taxing on server resources. Windows 7 could easily be the first subscription based OS. Computers will have to be registered on Microsoft's central server in order to run. This might be better than WGA and really throw a wrench into pirating. Heck if I was running Microsoft I would jump all over the idea.

Hmm, thank you for that explanation, you have put this concept into a whole new light for me. As long as I do not have to pay for the extra features to use Windows, fine by me. Extra components can easily be replaced by FOSS/3rd party alternatives.

Speaking of which, tomorrow I will call the pre-sales team with the number stated in the e-mail. I do not see how this would deter pirates without making me shell out extra money each month, though.

cmat
January 2nd, 2009, 06:42 AM
The PC need to be registered on a central server to run.

How I think it would be done -- at the installation the user will have to create an account with Microsoft. The Windows installer generates a key unique to that PC and binds it to the PC and user account. So when the user goes online Windows sends the key to the server and matches it to the one stored in the user's account. The copy of Windows is forever bound to that user's account and PC. If it's installed on any other PC the user that's registered to it would first need to deactivate Windows on the PC and then re-register the new PC to that copy of Windows. Sort of like how SecuROM works.

MisterFlibble84
January 2nd, 2009, 06:42 AM
What about OpenSolaris? :icon_frown:

And you know what the best thing is? They patented this idea so that only they could use it. :lol:

As soon as this happens, I promise I will hand out free CDs of Linux to anyone I know personally in my city.

Your honor, my client is acting vigorously to defend their sole right to drive themselves out of business... :twisted:

DOS4dinner
January 2nd, 2009, 06:55 AM
It kind of makes sense that they would be leaning towards this way of doing business. Back in March when Windows 7 started picking up headlines. Microsoft mentioned that this was going to be the most modular version of Windows ever (doesn't mean much to me when all their APIs are closed). I started thinking that they might be doing this to make certain features subscription based. You can buy a base OS and then pay monthly or annually for premium components. If you don't want to pay for them they can be simply turned off without taking down the whole system.

I think Microsoft "cutting the fat" and slimming down Windows 7 makes it better at running in a virtual environment without being too taxing on server resources. Windows 7 could easily be the first subscription based OS. Computers will have to be registered on Microsoft's central server in order to run. This might be better than WGA and really throw a wrench into pirating. Heck if I was running Microsoft I would jump all over the idea.

I get the feeling the most expensive paid for feature is going to be "98/XP support, for those businesses who need to run legacy applications"

Dr. C
January 2nd, 2009, 07:29 AM
Yes, but the introduction of product activation and DRM isn't the only factor in the decline of those stock prices.

MSFT peaked at a time when a lot of stocks were peaking. All three major U.S. stock indices made record highs (NASDAQ's peaked above 5000 points in 2000). After that peak in prices, many stocks began a steady decline throughout 2000 and 2001. The decline was worsened by the attacks on September 11.

If you look at MSFT's prices in the past couple of years, you can see that they peaked again at around $35 per share right around the time when the Dow Jones was in the 13,000 point range.

After the stock market bubble popped once more, MSFT's price declined along with it.

Yes but compare MSFT to GOOG (Google) and one sees the difference between stagnation / decline and growth. GOOG is trading at 300% above its IPO launch price of 2004 in-spite of the recent declines in the stock market. MSFT trading well below its lowest price of 2004.

While Google was busy producing a product that people actually wanted, Microsoft was investing billions in the DRM crippled OS Known as Vista that has been very poorly received by the marketplace.

MikeTheC
January 2nd, 2009, 08:35 AM
I think that was P. T. Barnum :)

Hmm...

Just did some spot research, and several sources seem to concur with this Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There%27s_a_sucker_born_every_minute) in which 1880s con man Joe Bessimer, or possibly another gentleman named David Hannum, actually coined the phrase.

I still happen to agree with it, whomever made it. "Rose by any other name," and all that, don't'cha know... :)

jrusso2
January 2nd, 2009, 08:52 AM
Yes but compare MSFT to GOOG (Google) and one sees the difference between stagnation / decline and growth. GOOG is trading at 300% above its IPO launch price of 2004 in-spite of the recent declines in the stock market. MSFT trading well below its lowest price of 2004.

While Google was busy producing a product that people actually wanted, Microsoft was investing billions in the DRM crippled OS Known as Vista that has been very poorly received by the marketplace.

Thats why Microsoft wants to get into the online business they just need to find a way to make money off the online MS Office thats why this charge for usage I believe.

aikiwolfie
January 2nd, 2009, 08:57 AM
Just to address the cell phone analogy. This isn't anything like using a cell phone on a contract. When you buy into the contract you get the phone and the services for your monthly fee all inclusive.

When the contract ends or if you don't pay a bill you can still access all data stored on the phone. So you don't lose anything important.

As I understand it from what Microsoft are proposing is you pay for Word every time you use it. You then pay for Excel every time you use that. And they're also proposing that the PC should be locked down to a single software supplier and it will lock down completely if you don't pay your bills.

I wonder who the "single" software supplier will be?

Frankly I think this is corporate suicide for Microsoft. A lot of people might be gullible enough to fall for this in the first instance. But as soon as people start losing access to their data stored on the hard drive the complaints and law suits will start raining in. It'll be a deluge of litigation. Especially if people find out they could have just bought a PC outright for a lot less.

Frak
January 2nd, 2009, 09:02 AM
I see it more as "wow, I wish it were like the old days, but there's nothing I can do..."

Remember, people have been taught (and I've seen it) before that there's some things, like the computing industry or government structure, in which the person feels she/he has no control over. The "taught" mentality.

MikeTheC
January 2nd, 2009, 09:06 AM
@ aikiwolfie:

This is what happens when Microsoft tries to do something "innovative".

I don't think these PCs would be from a "single" supplier, but more likely some number of companies would want to jump in on this (you know how corporate salesmen and sales jobs can be like), but the lockdown will be to whatever vendor we're talking about.

But I am curious who will be the first to sign with Microsoft, and whether or not we should raise public awareness about that company. Hmm indeed...

eragon100
January 2nd, 2009, 10:55 AM
Quote:

"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."

I think I am going to give Neelie Kroes a call, if you get my meaning...

Bens_fullonworld
January 2nd, 2009, 04:10 PM
So I have a gas meter, a water meter, a electricity meter, and now a meter in my computer? Must have been casual day at Microsoft.

I can see that it offers cut price computing, and considering the current global financial market, rising living costs, it may seem to be good value to consumers, business etc.

So spend less, get your windows computer, and pay the subscription... or keep you old hardware, and use linux.... the choice is yours.

Actually, I'm more concerned what they would "bundle" with their subscription - ie other non essential apps, adverts, etc.... The mind boggles.

Anyhow I have gone off on a tangent. IMHO...

Skripka
January 2nd, 2009, 04:26 PM
So I have a gas meter, a water meter, a electricity meter, and now a meter in my computer? Must have been casual day at Microsoft.

I can see that it offers cut price computing, and considering the current global financial market, rising living costs, it may seem to be good value to consumers, business etc.

So spend less, get your windows computer, and pay the subscription... or keep you old hardware, and use linux.... the choice is yours.

Actually, I'm more concerned what they would "bundle" with their subscription - ie other non essential apps, adverts, etc.... The mind boggles.

Anyhow I have gone off on a tangent. IMHO...

Fear not, as always-Microsoft has the best of intentions towards their end-users at heart.

TBOL3
January 2nd, 2009, 05:33 PM
Really, this is why I remember hearing about MS patenting the idea of putting ads into an operating system?

Sure, I bet it would start with no ads (or maybe just on tiny one on a loading screen). But I believe it will eventually get ads.

adrian.todireanu
January 2nd, 2009, 06:35 PM
... and, then you realize that hackers are your friends, actually!!! :D


just kiddin' ;)

MaxIBoy
January 2nd, 2009, 06:47 PM
Weren't there ads in Windows 95?



And to all who thought that this would be impossible or illegal (I'm not saying it isn't,) my idea from page 1 is looking more and more like this "security module."

I imagine they'd implement it with a motherboard chip. Here's how it would go down:

A simple "lockout" chip is designed.

It contains a relay that feeds power to the northbridge, southbridge, CPU, RAM, and so on.
It contains the system clock.
For every millisecond that the relay is closed, a "usage meter" in an internal EEEPROM is incremented.
It replaces the functions of the BIOS.

A special six-pin internal connector is designed. One end will connect to the NIC, the other end will connect to this special chip. Sort of like the connector you use to power your cooling fans.
All motherboards must have this new chip, and all NICs must have this new connector, otherwise Microsoft will refuse to "certify" them as being "capable" of handling this new OS.


Then, the bootstrap process goes like this:

User presses power button.
This new "lockout" chip generates a hash, based on the serial number of the chip and the current date as reported by the system clock.
This hash is sent to a remote server, via the NIC, via this new six-pin connector.
If the hash is valid, the remote server uses it to encrypt a standard handshake packet, and sends the packet back to the chip, via the NIC, via the six-pin connector.
The chip then sends whatever is in its "usage" meter, and resets the counter.
The server then automatically bills the owner of the computer, and uses this hash we already mentioned to encrypt some BIOS code and send it to the chip. (Or, if the user cannot afford to pay the bill, it sends a signal that tells the chip to display a nag message on the screen.)
The chip decrypts the BIOS code, loads it into the registers of the processor, and the computer boots normally from there.



Now, the computer is running normally, regardless of the OS. This lockout chip is still running. Every 10 minutes or so, the chip pings the remote server, and you are billed for the time. If the chip is unable to ping the server, the computer hard-resets.

zmjjmz
January 2nd, 2009, 07:03 PM
Weren't there ads in Windows 95?



And to all who thought that this would be impossible or illegal (I'm not saying it isn't,) my idea from page 1 is looking more and more like this "security module."

There will definitely be ways to avoid being locked into this, such as building your own machine. It's unlikely that all motherboard manufacturers would support this, and by the looks of it you could disable it.

MaxIBoy
January 2nd, 2009, 07:10 PM
There will be two or three motherboard manufacturers who will go for this. The majority of OEMs will start to look for alternatives.

Swagman
January 2nd, 2009, 07:20 PM
Ever since moving over from my Amiga A1200 I have NEVER bought a pre-built PC.

I have always built every pc I owned including my AmigaONE.

But I'm not Jo/ann Public !!

Frak
January 2nd, 2009, 09:03 PM
Anything that involves a remote server can/will be subverted within a day of release. The first Microsoft Windows Vista Business models involved pinging a KVM authentication server on the local network (supplied by Microsoft) to allow usage. It took only 1-2 days for someone to create a KVM that auto-certifies the Business edition indefinitely via the use of a Virtual Machine.

I don't doubt that someone would create a metre server within a reasonable timeframe.

cmat
January 2nd, 2009, 09:35 PM
On embedding the OS in the PC.

It would be a good idea because viruses can't have write access to the core system files. But this could effectively wipe out the competition. Since only one OS can be used on the PC. You can't pirate/hack embedded ROM. Information and updates can be saved on a local disk.

Frak
January 2nd, 2009, 09:38 PM
On embedding the OS in the PC.

It would be a good idea because viruses can't have write access to the core system files. But this could effectively wipe out the competition. Since only one OS can be used on the PC. You can't pirate/hack embedded ROM. Information and updates can be saved on a local disk.
I believe the ACORN did this.

cmat
January 2nd, 2009, 09:44 PM
I believe the ACORN did this.

My mom had one of those. :D

lykwydchykyn
January 2nd, 2009, 10:28 PM
I believe the ACORN did this.

Well, back in the day this was a pretty common way of doing things; a lot of early home computer platforms had rom-based OS's.

I don't see us going back to that scenario, but you never know.

Messyhair42
January 2nd, 2009, 10:50 PM
if they're charging for the useful life of a computer they could charge more for linux. o'course what is the use of a computer with windows?

zmjjmz
January 2nd, 2009, 10:51 PM
Well, back in the day this was a pretty common way of doing things; a lot of early home computer platforms had rom-based OS's.

I don't see us going back to that scenario, but you never know.

That was only acceptable because those OS's were little more than BASIC interpreters. You would load applications slowly from a tape drive after that.

gletob
January 3rd, 2009, 03:29 AM
Hello Mr. Ballmer this is Gletob down at the U.S. Patent office your patent has been denied. Some of this has already been patented and you also made use of fuzzy terminology. Thanks have a nice day.

No seriously though their patent application was denied.

Kopachris
January 3rd, 2009, 03:45 AM
Hello Mr. Ballmer this is Gletob down at the U.S. Patent office your patent has been denied. Some of this has already been patented and you also made use of fuzzy terminology. Thanks have a nice day.

No seriously though their patent application was denied.
Praise <insert supreme being here>! :D

Grant A.
January 3rd, 2009, 03:57 AM
Yeppers, it's been confirmed, the patent was infact rejected.

http://www.slashgear.com/microsoft-pay-per-use-patent-rejected-0228571/

Thank God! The system works, by George, it works!

Giant Speck
January 3rd, 2009, 04:01 AM
Well, I guess this thread has lived out its purpose, don't you think?

overdrank
January 3rd, 2009, 04:08 AM
Yeppers, it's been confirmed, the patent was infact rejected.

http://www.slashgear.com/microsoft-pay-per-use-patent-rejected-0228571/

Thank God! The system works, by George, it works!

Thread Closed at the request of the OP