Neowin.net

I agree with this completely. Why do we need to go back to time-shared, pay as you go computers when people already own Personal Computers that can meet most of our needs at a reasonable price?

It's all about gouging the most money out of people.

Last edited by iamwhoiam on 30 Dec 2008 - 23:24

I bet they do both.

Everyone fearing the sky is falling needs to read V9s' post. Right on the money. You aren't going to have to pay to rent a portion of your own PCs hardware. Jeez.

I reckon this post is spot on

That's what MS's big push is right now, the cloud. People who don't use their PC's a lot and only on a limited time/basis, would be quite happy with a cheap terminal like device that you pay as you go probably.

It's all about price and if it's simple enough to work with.

But this sorta thing will probably be for business more than anything. And it'll just tie into MS's Windows Azure platform and services strategy.

Thin client? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thin_client

No, this is about pushing their online cloud systems through cheap terminals/kiosks etc.

It's got nothing to do with your home PC and hardware you buy.

You are hitting major point. The biggest bull**** MS and other companies are trying to deliver to people...and that thing is called Cloud Computing. That's gonna be ultimate dead of those companies.

Gaming couldn't work with cloud computing. People already complain about input lag as it is without considering the latency introduced when streaming data across the internet. Certainly though it could be useful for resource intensive work like rendering or theoretical calculations.

i think they used the term 'network gaming' in order to differentiate it from the type of gaming that we normally have on PC's or consoles... i think that it would be almost like web-based games, as in its not going to be fast-paced, but it can be close to realtime and graphically rich... maybe strategy games or point and click rpg's would work?
its going to be like the early 90's FMV-based video games all over again, except maybe your going to have realtime rendered graphics streamed to you as the video, there can be as much content as the hard disk on the hosting machine will allow, and this content can be all dynamic... it will be a sandbox running on a single machine, instead of a copy of the game world on each different computer trying to stay in sync with the rest.... because there is only one computer and all the players or users just give input to the computer and recieve video data in response
like the main machine could have something like a nvidia tesla rendering the graphics for everyone, a cpu core set aside for doing the encoding, etc...

QFT

+1

Almost everyone posting has missed the point. I guess people just have narrow views of what goes on outside of their own little space/world.

It's not really hard to see what MS is thinking/trying to do with this patent.

No we don't. Ultimate goal of MS and Corporate world is for you to run thin client (terminal) and everything else you pay as service. That's how they can control you...i mean cough gov cough.

You absolutely know this how? Oh, that's right, you don't.

Wow, I haven't heard an argument so convincing since I left elementary school. If you want to play that game, do you absolutely know that I don't absolutely know? Oh, that's right, you don't. You lose, get out of the sandbox.

The business model already exists with other goods and services. Ever ride a bus, cab, train, or airplane to get somewhere? Do you recall whining about how you didn't own the vehicle, but were just being milked over and over by Fascist World Corporations?

I never claimed it to be so. You on the other hand did. At this point it's only speculation as to what will happen, or not. My bets are that this will eventually end up in the laps of the consumers.


Really childish of you.

Difference is, I don't own the buses, the cabs, the trains, or the aircraft. So I expect to pay for those services. The "pay-per-use", as I said above, will likely trickle down to the consumers. If it's successful with the business world it will most likely be pushed down to the consumer level.

I can't say for sure it will, just as you can't can for sure that it won't.

This is not convincing, because it essentially proposes that Microsoft will invest capital towards forcibly destroying a profitable business model in favor of a new one, rather than employing both under different circumstances. I hate car to computer analogies, but it seems the easiest example.

Many individuals own cars. They don't pay a direct fee to drive their cars (ignoring taxes, etc), because they are privately owned. Individuals come to own cars by buying them from a dealer, who has a contract with the car manufacturer. This is similar to how computers typically work. Many consumer machines are privately owned, and the hardware and software is bought through an intermediary. Sales contracts between this intermediary and the hardware and software manufacturers ensure that the latter groups get paid. Most of their revenue is derived from these contracts, rather than direct sale to the end user.

There exists public transportation in the form of taxis (cars). Some car manufacturer has a contract with a cab company to supply equipment, which is used to render a service to customers in a pay-as-you-go fashion. This is roughly equivalent to what people believe this patent entails. The hardware is owned by a company that provides a service, and not by the individual.

Note that these represent two models of business. In one, the equipment manufacturer caters to a consumer market where it is profitable for the end users to own the product, i.e. you sell a car and get money, or you sell a computer and/or a software license, and get money. It works for people who think it reasonable to privately own a car, or a computer. The second model caters towards a different situation in which the consumer does not find it reasonable to privately own the product. Lets say the consumer lives in Maine, owns a Land Rover, and has traveled to Tokyo for a weekend. This person does not find it reasonable to take this vehicle with him, even though he owns it. Instead, he finds greater economic rationality in renting a vehicle, or even just paying for a cab when he wants motorized transportation.

Let this traveler suddenly remember that he needs to contact his business, but damn, he didn't bring his 25 kg watercooled Alienware setup with dual LCD monitors. He cabs over to a new internet cafe, sits down, and pays for 15 minutes of light web browsing, lets say it costs him 30 cents. Another guy, lets call him Mark, is sitting next to our traveler. Mark is playing Duke Nukem Forever, and is paying three dollars an hour for his experience. This scenario optimizes the cost/benefit for the involved parties. The businessman from Maine wouldn't find it fair to pay for capabilities that he doesn't need, however, Mark the gamer finds this to be acceptable, since he knows he'll only spend three days here on this school trip, and couldn't play on a portable netbook. The internet cafe owner benefits by being able to supply flexible machine capabilities without buying and setting up many different types of computer. He charges a higher price to heavy users who suck down more electricity than light business users.

Notice that these usage patterns - the businessman, and the gamer, don't exclude private ownership of computer hardware. They both own, having bought, highly capable machines for home use, but it doesn't make sense for these privately owned setups to travel. Given that a large proportion of people do have to travel for work-related purposes, and also given that public computing has taken off, it makes sense for Microsoft to expand into this new burgeoning market. It doesn't benefit Microsoft to suddenly pull out of highly profitable relationships with OEMs, invest in controlling hardware, and shove pay-as-you-go computing down the throats of consumers, when it can have play both markets profitably. We are not going to have to switch over to a pay-as-you-go service, it is being provided as an option for when it makes sense.



Right... The difference between what I'm saying and what you are saying is that I have an argument, and you have a statement.

I agree with you on the PC point. I'm in college right now taking networking classes and I could see this being a very lucrative option in the future for businesses. This could really be placed anywhere, storefront in a mall, or in a hospital, places where a person normally doesn't go, but it still gives them access to check email, surf the net, anything at they want with a reasonable price, at least from the pic at the top. So everyone stop going nuts already.

A dollar? Lol. I doubt you'll get off that cheap.

LOL, when you can get it in, yes, it works great.

They give linux away, and no one wants it. Don't see how this would factor into Microsoft renting services via a kiosk.

Next?

um how can MS patent a system (cloud computing) when the likes of IBM and others are already in it. that makes no sense. if I'm right, then alot of people will migrate to Linux if not, things will go on as they are.

It's not patenting the cloud computing system, it's patenting a method of charging for the cloud computing system.

Seriously just shut the **** up. If i have to hear this linux garbage one more time. People have been crying that if MS screws this or that up for 15 years that everyone is going to linux. NO ONE IS GOING TO ****ING LINUX. NO ONE EVER WILL. IF MS ****S UP THEN SOMETHING BETTER WILL COME ALONG. AND IT WONT BE STUPIX.

well... does this mean that if you own a powerful pc thats sitting idle most of the time, you can install something that microsoft will develop in the future based on this patent, and then use it to make money by charging for other people to use the computer remotely?

Would you like a tissue?

Linux is becoming more and more easier everyday to use, you never know

Geez, did someone pee in your cornflakes? relax trying to have a decent discussion here.

umm cyber cafes are already public... you mean 'virtual' ?

what price? storage prices are down, and PC's don't cost all that much..unless you always buy alienware or some prestigious PC maker like them.

That's exactly what I'm saying, Sparky.