Apolitically Incorrect » Microsoft’s Terrible, Awful, Really Bad Idea

An economy that relies upon innovation to power it is a wonderful thing. As long as there are new ideas that can be brought to market, its ability to grow and expand is virtually limitless. There is, however, a downside. Continuous innovation is extremely difficult and can be tremendously expensive. Some numbers and estimates might highlight just how difficult. In 2004, the Harvard Business Review said that only 1 in 10 product introductions succeed in the marketplace. This, however, only represents product introductions. As anyone who has ever worked in Research and Development can tell you, a relatively small number of projects ever make it to the market. As a conservative estimate, let's say one in three. Taking these numbers, we can estimate that only 1 in 30 project ideas ever really gains success.

There are many and varied reasons to explain this phenomenon. The fickleness of the market is certainly one important reason and serious competition among other vendors is another. I would like to take a moment and examine a third: monumental stupidity and ignorance. Simply put, not all ideas are equal and many terrible ideas get more consideration than they merit. A poster child example appeared in the news last week: Microsoft's patent, number 20080319910.

Here is how Microsoft describes its vision, "Metered Pay-As-You-Go Computing Experience":

The scalable performance level components may include a processor, memory, … 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 to pay for the services actually selected and that presumably correspond to the tasks or task being performed.

The metering agents and elements allow an underwriter … 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 revenue commensurate with actual performance level settings and usage.

If you are trying to decide if you read the last paragraph correctly, the answer is yes. Microsoft has proposed metered computer usage. I am left more than somewhat speechless by the stupidity. How can an enormous company comprised of many intelligent individuals present a model and system that is out of touch?

Microsoft has successfully applied cell phone and utility logic to computers. This places them in such "honored" company as AT&T, Enron and Big Oil. What is even more shocking, though, is that the patent application recognizes that this particular idea may increase the overall cost of a computer over its life. I only speculate that the model has been proposed in an effort to capitalize on the evolution toward "Software as a Service."

This proposition It is only about thirty years past its time (rather fortunately). In 1978, such a rental model would have made good sense. Most computers were mainframes and hardware costs were a major limiting factor in the proliferation of widespread computer usage. Unfortunately for Microsoft, it's not 1978 anymore. In 2008, the downward spiral of hardware costs has commoditized computers. The limiting factor in today's market might be charitably described as "software costs." I think a more accurate description is corporate greed. I also marvel that Microsoft is failing to learn from experience. It has tried a similar idea in emerging (read third world) markets without any real success.

Thinking like this moves Microsoft (further) towards irrelevance. The computing landscape is stacked in the favor of consumers. For the first time in a decade, there are real alternatives to the computing giant and many of them are free (Linux). Any proposition that increases the overall cost of a computer should be dead on arrival. I fail to understand why Microsoft would actively weaken its position. Thoughts?