Microsoft Introduces Pay-as-You-Go Computing 328
An anonymous reader writes "Geekzone is reporting that Microsoft is introducing a new business model for 'pay-as-you-go computing.' From the article: 'The pay-as-you-go computing model enabled by Microsoft's FlexGo technology allows customers to have a fully featured PC at home by paying only for the time as they use it through the purchase of prepaid activation cards or tokens. Microsoft has been running trials of the program in Brazil for more than a year and will soon be expanding to select markets in India, Russia, China and Mexico.'" This makes me giggle, because it's basically the return of time-sharing; in the past it was for for mainframe systems, but I suppose the same concept behind the mainframe idea would be true in developing countries today with PC systems.
Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Giggle giggle (Score:3, Insightful)
When you stop giggling you may as well notice both have nothing in common.
One is a payment model for using licensed software (but time is not limited by demand, just by your money), and the other is an early form of multitasking, allowing more efficient use of the mainframe resources.
This is just sub-prime financing (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the same tactic used to lease-to-own cars to people who can't really afford them
FTFA:
In other words, if you don't qualify for the loan as per item 1, you don't get to "long-ter lease" the box. So why not just borrow it outright and not be stuck paying per hour? Or take that 1/3 cash down and buy a used PC.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Considering that they want 1/3 up front, and that the software is now the greatest part of the expense of owning a box, it would be cheaper to take that 1/3 and buy a lower-spec white box and throw linux or bsd on it, and pocket the difference.
After all, if they can't afford the box, they won't be able to afford the games and shite that require Windows either ...
With the mney they save, they can buy a Wii for their gaming fix.
Something I don't Understand (Score:2, Insightful)
Won't work (Score:5, Insightful)
The true is that "people with modest incomes in emerging markets" don't buy software. Even when buying a new computer, big retails shops bundle Linux, that is removed as soon as people see they can't play games or use Encarta or Word or any other well known software. On the newspapers in Argentina, you see there is a standard fee for "linux removing" (and Windows installing, not advertised). In small computers shops, they preinstall WindowsXP without even asking (without licence). Most software is available for u$2 on CD-R (is advertised on any newspaper and even phone booth).
Only big companies (mostly from overseas) can afford to buy software.
All of a sudden... (Score:4, Insightful)
Panic seizes Wall Street, Microsoft stock dives, NASDAQ tanks, Bill Gates become the 100th richest man in the world, and Congress introduces law designed to protect "American innovation and competitiveness against the evil, communist, terrorist-sponsored opensource software".
Hey, one can dream, right?
Re:Giggle giggle (Score:5, Insightful)
Filthy (Score:5, Insightful)
And cue the anti-Slashdot trolls bitching about how we see everything MS does as evil...
Re:First Post (Score:3, Insightful)
They can't do that now, how do you expect them to do that in the future?
Besides, if you look at how it works, you'll see that it really is the shits ... you get a 12-character code every time you want to "add minutes." How much you want to bet there'll be a keygen and spoofed add-time servers if this catches on?
Just wondering (Score:2, Insightful)
I guess it makes a lot of sense from Microsofts point of view.. instead of letting them have cheap home PCs and "free" Windows software (aka piracy), make them pay outlanding sums of money over the long-term without realizing it, while offering the usual sub-standard software and being able to fall back on "ooh, it must be network problems, cause our centralized Office products are perfect!" excuses as required.
Whatever happened to all these $100 PCs bundled with Linux? They can't be much more expensive than a thin-client PC + broadband connection required to deliver the new Microsoft centralised services at any decent speed?
I hope M$ has thought this one through - if they start actually forcing those who cannot afford it to pay for M$ products, those who cannot afford it will quickly migrate to something they can afford, eg. Linux. Perhaps once the end-user moves, corporations will feel more secure about moving and before you know it, M$ isn't turning a profit in either of their two truly profitable offerings any more (Windows and Office)
Re:This is just sub-prime financing (Score:5, Insightful)
FTFA: "Genuine Microsoft"
So you're going to have to pay for the time you use to download and install all those patches, updating antiviruses, as well as the time your box is being p0wned and sending out spam, etc.
Of course, if you can't afford to own your box, you can't afford a fast connection, so you're going to spend more overall just maintaining your box.
For the 1/3 they want up front, buy a plain beige box outright and run a free os. After all, its not like these people are going to be able to afford to blow big bux on games or other software that runs only on windows.
And of course, youll want a broadband connection.. (Score:3, Insightful)
This is Microsoft's answer to the $100 computer (Score:3, Insightful)
So now you know... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Palladium Killer App (Score:4, Insightful)
obviously you have either never signed a contact before in your life, or you don't have much of an imagination.
Re:So now you know... (Score:5, Insightful)
One of these projects is attempting to empower the 3rd world, and the other project is attempting to enslave the 3rd world.
Can you guess which is which?
Just like the "Jump to Conclusions Mat" (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Rewrite for simplicity (Score:2, Insightful)
But has KDE been ported to Windows, other than through the heavyweight Cygwin layer? Or have display technologies associated with *BSD and GNU/Linux been ported to any non-onboard 3D video cards?
Re:Why? (Score:2, Insightful)
Easy for us, tough for Joe Six-pack, who just wants to read his email.
Re:First Post (Score:4, Insightful)
I see from all the -1 Flamebait mods that Team99 is out in force this morning ...
The simple fact of the matter is that this whole plan shouldn't be called "Pay as you go" but "Pain as you go."
Its targeted to people who can't afford it and would be better off using a free OS on hardware they can buy outright for the 1/3 down that this thing goes for ... or they can buy a used box if the really really really want Windows.
Is Microsoft Jumping the Shark? (Score:3, Insightful)
And what about Total Cost of Ownership... Oh wait, that's Microsoft's TCO, not the users... ;-)
Re:All of a sudden... (Score:3, Insightful)
That or microsoft will spend all it's vast energy and reosurces trying to find new growth opportunities, instead of finding the growth markets it can leverage for more profit, that they become difavored by wall-street and they stagnate and people find some other hot company to invest in. Like maybe some dreamer who's figured out a sensible buisness plan that say turns switchgrass or algea from 'possible' energy alternatives to 'profitable' alternative energy sources, and manages to get past all the hurdles of people who would love to see that person fail, and might even be willing to resort to illegal activities to help ensure it fails etc.
if just such a company were to come along today, and make it's way past every hurdle, and consistantly had a viable long term growth model, wall-street would forget everything microsoft has done for them in a heartbeat. Energy has proven itself as a viable sustainable high profit industry. Renewable energy has the silver lining of 'never running out' while still having the variables such as 'weather' to create periodic price instability to create buy/sell opportunities that people seem to love so much.
in any case, wall-street doesn't hinge on one single company they hinge on there always being enough strong companies to drive the speculation and share values higher. microsoft crushing all computer competitors would be far worse for wall-street than linux crushing microsoft, because then there would be thousands of 'linux' companies to drive speculation into a frenzy.
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
I only know one person whose default browser is still IE.
Re:Filthy (Score:4, Insightful)
This is about much more than an operating system -- it encompasses the entire hardware. The Windows OS is just a fraction of the cost, however maybe only Windows OS supports the pay-as-you-go integration with the hardware right now. The same model could be used to buy a machine that runs Mac OSX or Linux. It's a novel idea and an alternative to the $100 PC.
Re:Why? (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, i know it's no one's fault but the hardware vendors and for a lot of people it isnt even an issue but you cant discount this issue. I'm computer savvy and i couldn't run debian no matter how much i wanted to until ubuntu came out simply because it wouldnt drive my DSL modem.
I personally look forward to the day when i can give my friends linux cds and recommend they try it, but i know the chance of intractible hardware issues popping up make it not worth the aggro yet.
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
2. answer a few questions
3. when dvd tray opens, remove dvd and reboot
4. set all apps and os to auto-update
"How do I do that?" "I can't find the app I want." "What about my games/apps from Windows?" "Hey I downloaded this program, what do I have to do to make it work?" "Why can't I just buy a CD and stick it in the drive to install a program like I do with Windows?" "Why won't (insert website or online media) load right?"
Linux is not an OS for the meek. If a user isn't willing to spend some time getting to know it and learn how to use it properly, it's a lot less tolerant of mistakes than Windows. It's not ready for prime time, and won't be until someone makes it idiot-friendly (which may not be a good thing).
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
1. run install cd
Also known as "boot off install CD", just like Linux.
2. answer a few questions
3. when cd tray opens, remove cd and reboot
Umm...haven't installed Windows lately, have you?
4. for driver_cd in driver_cds: cross fingers; GOTO 1
For drivers_not_on_linux_cd: cross fingers; goto internet; hope you find what you need.
5.
6. insert app cd
7. answer a few questions
8. for app_cd in app_cds: GOTO 6
Linux: install package, update, wash, rinse, repeat. No significant difference, except for the swapping of CDs (which I rarely do, since most of my apps are downloads and reside on a hard drive).
9. update antivirus
10. set OS to auto-update
11. set antivirus to auto-update
#11 == #9. These three can be grouped as one, like you did with #4.
12. every once in a while: pay to update apps
What apps would those be?
13. once a year: reformat to get rid of spyware/malware/trojans/etc; GOTO 1
4 1/2 years running an XP install, and I *finally* got something two days ago. Just as well, gives me an excuse to do the reinstall I've been planning for a year or so now.
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow, I guess windows is much better in that regard.
My point is, Joe Six Pack doesn't know what to do if he can't find the app he's looking for. He can't walk into a store and buy it, and if it's not in the application list (for example, Synaptic? something like that) he's going to have a hard time finding it.
Linux is not windows so you wouldn't expect it to run windows software, but if you want to, you can use wine.
Now please tell me exactly how to run my closed-source linux binaries on windows. What - "Windows" can't do that?
Well, lets just spin that as an advantage to windows then.
See, now, you're assuming I'm saying Linux sucks, whereas I'm actually trying to say that Linux isn't novice-friendly. The "I just want it to work" crowd isn't going to take the time to learn what they need to know to make Linux work for them. Windows is a lot more idiot-friendly.
You probably didn't need to download it by hand, you probably could have installed it using your package manager by point-and-click, as clearly stated in your documentation.
Actually, *I* did, because the package manager didn't work.
Because you can install almost everything via online repositories, which is easier and free.
Having to go to the shops and buy each app for large prices instead of installing through point-and-click, for no money - probably from the install disk or an online repository.
Aside from the obvious trouble for dial-up users, let's talk about convenience: a typical package manager (the only one I've used is Synaptic) has very little program information, and no help features. Walking into the store will give you shiny boxes to read and a semi-useful sales person (if you're lucky) to give you some advice if you need it.
Probably because you haven't bothered to install some plugin, or because the 3rd party website is not made to proper standards.
Of course, windows comes with all browser plugins and codecs preinstalled doesn't it?
What, it doesn't? Well that must be what makes it better in this regard.
Of course, third parties that can't follow basic web spec means linux is at fault, doesn't it?
I have a specific situation in mind that I've run into at home. My wife was trying to watch some video or another, and it wanted Flash installed. So, I installed Flash. Still didn't work. Removed and reinstalled both firefox and flash, no go. She fired up her old Windows ME box, updated Flash, it worked perfectly.
Whether or not there's a problem with the site, Linux clearly failed as a user-friendly OS that round. If your browser only loads half the sites on the internet, blaming the sites for bad code won't draw any more users. They'll go with the crappier browser that loads 90% of sites properly.
Some people will mess up their OS, be it linux or windows, it never ceases to amaze me how they'll publicly blame the OS for that.
You completely failed at reading that post. I especially like how you skipped over the last line:
Linux is not an OS for the meek. If a user isn't willing to spend some time getting to know it and learn how to use it properly, it's a lot less tolerant of mistakes than Windows. It's not ready for prime time, and won't be until someone makes it idiot-friendly (which may not be a good thing).
Let me repeat the last part: WHICH MAY NOT BE A GOOD THING. Microsoft's mistake was aiming at the lowest common denominator. They wanted to make an OS that your average moron could use easily, and did so. Along with that, they made an OS that was full of security holes and allowed apps far more access than any reasonably-designed OS should.
If you want to see Linux become a mainstream OS, you're going to have to dumb it down. If you dumb it down, you make it vulnerable, and it loses its primary advantage over Windows: security.
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
The financial "why" has several aspects. First, upgrade business isn't like it used to be. Not like it was in the early 1990s when we were still on the technology adoption curve and products were improving in ways that were significant to lots of people. Back in the day, you were constantly increasing the rate of computer adoption, which meant you were buying new software and upgrading old software to maintain compatibility. Now it's mostly replacement, and if you've licensed appropriately, your areement allows you to move your copy to the new machine. Sure, you pay to be part of the license program, but you've chosen it because it's the cheapest option for your company.
The result is lower sales volumes. Software being what it is, it also means lower margins. The great thing about software in the 80s and 90s is that volume made unit costs tiny, which means huge profits. The downside is lower volumes means much lower profits, because so many of the costs are fixed.
Looking forward, the future then is of modest to small sales volumes AND tiny margins, which means redefining your company around, not innovation (or commercializing other peoples' innovations), but around efficiently managing technology that was mostly created long in the past.
The second financial reason is that people will generally spend more if they can do it in lower increments, as iTunes has.
Software rental is a strategy to find some middle ground between the go go years of tech expansion, and becoming the economic equivalent of a steel mill.
The marketing aspects of "why" -- why this might be a good idea for some consumers -- is that you can index your costs to your revenues better. Big companies have labor licked. They can lay people off, or better yet let contractors go. But the stuff they invested in to make those people productive -- that's money down the tubes. The computer hardware itself increasingly isn't such a hit. But the software is now the majority of value in the computers. While on a "pay as you go" scheme, a successful venture pays a bit more, on the other hand failing ventures cost somewhat less. It is possible that successful ventures may even convert licensing schemes.
If there were a pay as you go option, entrepreneurs may find their financiers insisting on using it, so they can get their capital out in a hurry.
Actually, the more licensing options there are for consumers (of proprietary software at least), the better off the consumers should be. The problem is the number of consumers who will make inappropriate choices, which will be a good thing for vendors. It's like choosing a phone plan. It's a black art. Buying software will become so as well. Benefiting from mistakes by consumers will be part of the company's financial model.
Oracle, by the way, is a pioneer in this regard. They have raised licensing to a science, and like science, you probably need the equivalent of an advanced degree in it to do it properly. For example, if you look at Oracle vs. SQL Server, there's always a way to get Oracle for about the same or maybe a tad cheaper -- if you choose right. But there's no "do-over". You choose wrong and you've got to buy Oracle again, no credits, and it's not really their fault you failed to understand you're own requirements. Even if this usually means you failed to predict the future.
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, I'm sorry, the installation CD with the configuration for Verizon's PPPoE network is Windows-only. I guess Grandma will have to sift through forums on how to enable PPPoE on Linux...once she comes to understand just what the hell PPPoE MEANS. If she could have used Windows, the Verizon setup CD would have taken care of all of this for her.
And once Grandma gets on the internet, and starts discovering she can't play Shockwave or Java games (yes, I know the JRE license changed...last week. it will be at least 6 more months before the results filter down), or watch wmv videos of cute children and cute kittens that her grandchildren sent her in the email. Boy, is she enjoying that new computer!
* Off-topic, but I must pick this nit: Windows XP starts up new users at 800x600...and unless Grandma is one-in-a-million, her eyes can't handle higher resolutions than that on the cheap 17" bundled monitor anyway.
Recent Macbook (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not talking about the past, I'm talking about the present where the Macbook is actually a really good value - and you don't need to pay Apple to upgrade the HD since it's so easy to replace.
As for the Mac Mini, it's $699 [CDN] for a 1.5Ghz single core processor with 512MB of ram. Big deal. I could buy a 2Ghz dual-core AMD64, 1GB of ram and a proper case (e.g. one where I can install new stuff) for about the same price.
Would you really buy that for your mom? What about software? That's where the real value of the lower end Macs comes in, very high quality hardware with a great set of software for most users.
And parents would appreciate the MUCH smaller mini form factor rather than that huge holking noisy AMD box. If all they want to do is use emaail and a web browser and manage photos, why choose a desktop?
Remember that I am not talking about more technical users who may well be more suited to the AMD box, I am talking about family members that only get by with computers because you, the tech guy, help them out.
Ob. Opiates Reference (Score:2, Insightful)
I think this quote bears repeating, although I don't know who started it:
Like any pusher, Microsoft has been doing its best for some years now to create and retain addicts - they have the infrastructure in place to keep those addicts coming back, and this is just another way to a) increase margins on what amounts to virtual crack, and b) ensure that your junkies don't go up to the next corner for something without as much strychnine.
The fact that they'll have every convenience store in the country turning over rocks for them [increasing the scope of the network] is gravy. It's a profitable idea if they can get the users to smoke that shit.
I'm seeing that in the future, I will not be buying anymore PCs - once these kinds of measures become pervasive to the point where the only [mod'd] hardware only allows the pre-paid software - well, at that point I'm going to have to be working on whatever machine was the last one I had before they took the old chips off the market, so I hope I have the source code.
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)