Microsoft files pay-per-use PC patent
Summary
Topics
US patent application number 20080319910, published on Christmas Day 2008, details Microsoft's vision of a situation where a "standard model" of PC is given away or heavily subsidized by someone in the supply chain. The end user then pays to use the computer, with charges based on both the length of usage time and the performance levels utilized, along with a "one-time charge".
Microsoft notes in the application that the end user could end up paying more for the computer, compared with the one-off cost entailed in the existing PC business model, but argues the user would benefit by having a PC with an extended "useful life".
"A computer with scalable performance level components and selectable software and service options has a user interface that allows individual performance levels to be selected," reads the patent application's abstract.
"The scalable performance level components may include a processor, memory, graphics controller, etc. Software and services may include word processing, email, browsing, database access, etc. To support a pay-per-use business model, each selectable item may have a cost associated with it, allowing a user to pay for the services actually selected and that presumably correspond to the task or tasks being performed," the abstract continues.
Integral to Microsoft's vision is a security module, embedded in the PC, that would effectively lock the PC to a certain supplier.
"The metering agents and specific elements of the security module… allow an underwriter in the supply chain to confidently supply a computer at little or no upfront cost to a user or business, aware that their investment is protected and that the scalable performance capabilities generate revenue commensurate with actual performance level settings and usage," the application reads.
'A more granular approach'
According to the application, the issue with the existing PC business model is that it "requires more or less a one chance at the consumer kind of mentality, where elasticity curves are based on the pressure to maximize profits on a one-time-sale, one-shot-at-the-consumer mentality".
Microsoft's proposed model, on the other hand, could "allow a more granular approach to hardware and software sales", the application states, adding that the user "may be able to select a level of performance related to processor, memory, graphics power, etc that is driven not by a lifetime maximum requirement but rather by the need of the moment".
"When the need is browsing, a low level of performance may be used and, when network-based interactive gaming is the need of the moment, the highest available performance may be made available to the user," the document reads. "Because the user only pays for the performance level of the moment, the user may see no reason to not acquire a device with a high degree of functionality, in terms of both hardware and software, and experiment with a usage level that suits different performance requirements."
By way of example, the application posits a situation involving three "bundles" of applications and performance: office, gaming and browsing.
"The office bundle may include word-processing and spreadsheet applications, medium graphics performance and two of three processor cores," the document reads. "The gaming bundle may include no productivity applications but may include 3D graphics support and three of three processor cores. The browsing bundle may include no productivity applications, medium graphics performance and high-speed network interface."
"Charging for the various bundles may be by bundle and by duration. For example, the office bundle may be $1.00 [68 pence] per hour, the gaming bundle may be $1.25 per hour and the browsing bundle may be $0.80 per hour. The usage charges may be abstracted to 'units/hour' to make currency conversions simpler. Alternatively, a bundle may incur a one-time charge that is operable until changed or for a fixed-usage period," the document reads.
Microsoft's patent application does acknowledge that a per-use model of computing would probably increase the cost of ownership over the PC's lifetime. The company argues in its application, however, that "the payments can be deferred and the user can extend the useful life of the computer beyond that of the one-time purchase machine".
The document suggests that "both users and suppliers benefit from this new business model" because "the user is able to migrate the performance level of the computer as needs change over time, while the supplier can develop a revenue stream business that may actually have higher value than the one-time purchase model currently practiced".
"Rather than suffering through less-than-adequate performance for a significant portion of the life of a computer, a user can increase performance level over time, at a slight premium of payments," the application reads. "When the performance level finally reaches its maximum and still better performance is required, then the user may upgrade to a new computer, running at a relatively low performance level, probably with little or no change in the cost of use."
Talkback Most Recent of 110 Talkback(s)
-
MS patents the Internet
Says it feels it would like to put its hand into your pocket each time you take a breath too.
fr0thy229th Dec 2008 -
Dude
it certainly seems to be going that way.
Amelioration29th Dec 2008 -
Agreed nt
nt
T1Oracle29th Dec 2008 -
How can something like this be patented?
It's already been done by someone else. It's NOT an original idea. I thought that is what patents were all about.
And it failed miserably when it was tried.
BitTwiddler29th Dec 2008 -
Patents are about original ideas..
Microsoft isn't. Never has been and will probably never be. Can anyone name one Microsoft "Inovation" that has not been done before?
tripolitan29th Dec 2008 -
V@...29th Dec 2008 -
Yes, they innovated ...
... trying to charge for software that has nothing to do with them, a la SCO and FUD and sabre rattling.Amelioration29th Dec 2008 -
This is nothing but
a thinly disguised description of the Cell Phone business model.
nfhiggs@...29th Dec 2008 -
HP
I was going to say that HP tried this with servers a while back, and isn't this the basic idea behind cloud computing? The more capacity you need, the more you pay.
Although I think I'll stick with my paid for 4 cores and switch to Linux totally, if they try this.
Although with many users replacing their computers every 6-10 years (and upgrading their operating systems at the same time), I can understand why Microsoft want to try and do something like this.
pico_D30th Dec 2008 -
Sounds like they are just patenting a business model. Hopefully, it will be
thrown out. Especially considering this has been done for a long time, with the only difference being a slightly finer granularity. But, even cell phone companies charge you more when you use your phone more and when you use more applications.
But, MS must be desperate trying to patent basic business models.
DonnieBoy29th Dec 2008 -
Microsuck is probably lobbying DC as we speak for this
God help us if they are paying lots of money to the
Obomber camp and lobbying with their looyahs to get
judicial agreement in their favor. This country will
truly go to hell. and what is the 'stay at home
server' that they are advertising, I am sure it is a
one-size-fits all approach to failure as well.
schmoe9930th Dec 2008 -
Same way I feel about subscription music...NOPE!
I feel the pay once and be done with it is better at least for
me. The keep on paying again, and again and again some
more is a bit off putting.
There is something a bit odd to have to be in constant
contact with the MS home world in order to use one's
system. After all how could MS (BIG BROTHER) know how
to bill me unless my computer and its software reported
back to MS?
Pagan jim
James Quinn29th Dec 2008 -
Me thinks...
it's the Rent-A-Car business model, eh?
^o^
n0neXn0ne29th Dec 2008 -
Rent-a-pile
more like, given the vendor.
Still, hats off to Microsoft, they can't write OS's that work, but they WILL get at your money by hook or by crook.fr0thy229th Dec 2008 -
rent a pile....
...of ****.
Now we really can call Micro$oft
I hate them for even thinking of this...and then...filing the patent! WTF
neonDog29th Dec 2008
Talkback - Tell Us What You Think
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
Facebook Activity
