In a misguided attempt to make PCs more affordable (or more likely a crafty attempt to squeeze money out of people), Microsoft has filed a patent for a "pay as you go" PC subscription system.
The basic idea is that you "build" a computer out of a set of parts, each with an associated cost, then Microsoft builds the computer, sends it to you, and you pay for it for every hour that you use it. While on the surface this might sound like a nice way to make PC gaming more affordable, when you crunch the numbers it ends up sounding kind of worthless.
The patent estimates a gaming PC would cost around $1.25 an hour (and we all know it will end up costing more than that). Assuming you use the computer for two hours a day (and I'm sure most of us use it much longer than that), you'll be spending $75 a month, or $900 a year. Considering that, if you search for deals, you can build a decent gaming PC for around $500/$600 and use it as much as you want, MS seems like they'll be ripping people off pretty hard.
The patent also mentions they may go with a flat rate pricing scheme that works for a set amount of time. Either way, anyone buying these is likely to get gouged.
If you want to get a gaming PC, build it yourself (it isn't as hard as it looks) or find someone who can do it for you. Spending $900 a year on a subpar machine would just be crazy.
[Via Cnet]
Contest:
3:30 PM on 12.30.2008
| 
Blade Runner, anyone?
Step 2) Enjoy your free computer.
in general the idea that this would make sense to your average consumer is pretty stupid, companies would pay because it cuts the bottom line compared to their profits, but for your average consumer there is no profit
@Ron
They make it explicitly clear what it's intended for in the patent - they want to make computers "more accessible" to increase the revenue software developers will get from an expanded userbase. They also admit that the consumer will likely end up paying more than they normally would if they just bought a computer, but think it will be justified because the machines are "scalable" and you won't have to upgrade as often. The problem is is that it will probably be cheaper to upgrade.
Then again I don't really know, its not like I would ever do this.
this part of the patent says exactly what I was saying:
"The system 10 may include a number of pay-per-use computers, such as a first computer 12, a second computer 14, and a representative last computer 16. The computers may be connected over individual local access connections 18, 20, 22 to a wide area network 24, such as the Internet, and from there to a fulfillment center 26. "
also in the opening description:
An administrator may use a similar user interface to set performance levels for each computer in a network, allowing performance and cost to be set according to a user's requirements.
it seems that this is more intended for institutional use
this part of the patent says exactly what I was saying:
"The system 10 may include a number of pay-per-use computers, such as a first computer 12, a second computer 14, and a representative last computer 16. The computers may be connected over individual local access connections 18, 20, 22 to a wide area network 24, such as the Internet, and from there to a fulfillment center 26. "
also in the opening description:
An administrator may use a similar user interface to set performance levels for each computer in a network, allowing performance and cost to be set according to a user's requirements.
it seems that this is more intended for institutional use
I'm also not entirely sure about the institutional use. Certainly, it will be used that way, but it really seems like MS is targeting it towards the regular consumers. When they talk about the "typical consumer", they talk about things like graduation invitations, Christmas letters, and trips too and from school.
Regardless of how it's implemented, it'll be interesting to see where this goes.